Young v. Hall

• Decision Date: 09 April 1912
• Citation: 4 Ala.App. 603,58 So. 789
• Parties: YOUNG v. HALL.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

58 So. 789

4 Ala.App. 603

YOUNG v. HALL.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 9, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by W. P. Hall against Reuben Young, revived, on his death, in the name of Lula M. Young, his administratrix, for money had and received, and for destruction of a mortgage lien. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Street & Isbell, of Guntersville, for appellant.

E. O McCord and Thomas E. Orr, both of Albertville, for appellee.

WALKER, P.J.

The claim of the plaintiff (the appellee here) was rested upon several crop mortgages made to him by one Heaton during the year 1908, and another such mortgage made to him by the same person and his wife in February, 1909. In January, 1909 Heaton made to the appellant's intestate a similar mortgage, which was recorded before the last-mentioned mortgage to the appellee was executed. In order for the appellee's claim to part of Heaton's 1909 crop to be supported by a crop mortgage made in 1908, the mortgagor must have had, at the time that mortgage was given, such an interest in the land upon which the crop was grown as to entitle him to mortgage the crops to be grown thereon in the year 1909, as the rule is established in this state that a mortgage on crops to be grown in the future does not create a specific lien upon such crops, unless at the time of the execution of the mortgage the mortgagor owned or had some interest in the land upon which the crops were grown. Windham & Co. v. Stephenson & Alexander, 156 Ala 341, 47 So. 280, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 910, 130 Am. St. Rep 102; McNeill v. Henderson & Hill, 1 Ala. App. 405 55 So. 269. There was evidence tending to show that when Heaton made the mortgages in 1908 he was in the possession, under a rental contract for that year alone, of land of one Cash, on which he made the crop of that year, and that at that time he had made no arrangement and had no understanding with Cash in regard to the rent or cultivation of any of his land in the year 1909; in other words, it was not until after the 1908 mortgage had been executed that Heaton acquired the right to cultivate the land of Cash upon which the 1909 crop was made.

The counsel for the appellee refer to the decision in the case of Lytle et al. v. Bowdon, 107 Ala. 361, 18 So. 130, as furnishing some support for the contention that the facts that Heaton was a tenant of Cash when he made a mortgage in 1908, purporting to cover the crops made by him in that county during that year and in each succeeding year until the mortgage should be paid, and that without any change of location, he became Cash's tenant for 1909, were enough to make...