From the circuit court of Coahoma county.

Hon. E. W. Williamson, Judge.

Appellant rented land to one Hopson-, taking his note for the agreed rent. She also sold him two mules with which to make a crop, taking a separate note for their price, and reciting in it that she retained a lien on the mules and crop until the note should be paid. Appellee, Durham, sub-rented a part of the land from Hopson. The latter did not make enough crop to pay for the mules, and Mrs. Trimble ■took possession of the cotton grown by Durham, the under-tenant, and applied it to the payment of the indebtedness for the mules, claiming a lien as landlord on all the agricultural products raised on the land for the rent due by him, and for -the purchase-price of the mules, as “ supplies furnished to the tenant” under § 1301, code 1880. Thereupon, Durham seized the cotton raised by him as under-tenant, contending that the mules sold by a landlord to the tenant are not “ supplies; ” and that, if mistaken in this, the landlord in this case had waived her landlord’s lien by taking the separate note for the price of the mules, reciting in it that she reserved a lien on the crop and mules for its payment.

The court, a jury being waived, found for the plaintiff, Durham, and Mrs. Trimble, the landlord, prosecutes this appeal.

Section 1801, code 1880, which is construed by the court, is as follows: “ Every lessor of land shall have a lien on all the agricultural products of the leased premises, however and by whomsoever produced, to secure the payment of the rent, and the fair market value of all advances made by him to his tenant for supplies for the tenant and others for whom he may contract, and for his business carried on upon the leased premises,” etc.

1. The language of § 1301 is clear, broad and sweeping. Nothing is more necessary to the making and marketing of a crop than a mule, and, when furnished a tenant, it is supplies “ for his business carried on upon the leased premises.”^ It is difficult to imagine a negro farming in this country without a mule.

2. The taking of the second note did not in any way change the status of the parties. The law gave the lien, and the mere recital of the lien in the note cannot work a waiver of it.

1. The value of mules, that can make many crops, is not within the meaning of the statute which contemplates a lien on the crop for the yeai’’s supplies. The rent for the service of the mules for the year is different, and is within the spirit of the law. The crop is made liable for the rent and cost of its production. It will be noted that former statutes give a lien for “ work-stock ” and for “ plantation supplies.” The code of 1880 gives a lien for “ advances ” for supplies'. See Herman v. Perkins, 52 Miss., 813; Lumbley v. Gilruth, 65 lb., 23.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress