¶1 The defendant’s counsel was candid enough to concede that, if the crops for the year 1886 did not pass under the mortgage executed in 1882, there should be a new trial. The question was decided in Wooten v. Hill, 98 N. C., 49, and State v. Garris, ibid., 733. It was held in' those cases that the lien existed only as to the “ crops planted, or about to be planted, in the year next following the execution of the conveyance.” We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was no lien on the crop of 1886, and that, for this reason, the prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant for its unlawful removal was unfounded.
¶2 If, however, the mortgagee had entered and possessed himself of the growing crops, he would not, as against the mortgagor, be compelled in equity to account for them as rents, as in other cases. The agreement would authorize him to directly apply the crops to his mortgage indebtedness.
¶3 Error.