Few v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Few v. Mitchell

96 S.W. 983, 80 Ark. 243, 1906 Ark. LEXIS 100

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 8, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 96 S.W. 983 (Few v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Few v. Mitchell, 96 S.W. 983, 80 Ark. 243, 1906 Ark. LEXIS 100 (Ark. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

Few rented land to Wilson and Reese, who were to cultivate it in cotton and corn for one-half of the crop. Mitchell took a crop mortgage from Wilson and Reese for supplies furnished them. The tenants failed to properly cultivate all the land and gather the crop, and Few took possession of the crop and gathered it, and this is a contest between him and Mitchell over it. The first contention is that Few should have been allowed one-half the expenses of gathering the crop, but the chancellor’s finding in effect gave him that and more, and he has no complaint on that score. The other contentions are for damages against the tenants claimed to be prior to the mortgagee’s rights. Few contends for $50 damages for neglect of the crop and. for rental value of lands not cultivated in violation of the contract and for other sums for violations of the contract. The landlord’s lien is primarily for rent alone, and has been extended by statute to advances of necessary supplies, money, etc. Kirby’s Digest, § § 5032-3. It can not be extended beyond the terms of the statute, and the claims here asserted are not within the statute. The right of a third party has intervened, and he can demand that his mortgage be given priority over other claims which do not fall within the statute.

The chancellor had a correct view of the law, and his findings of fact are sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.

McCulloch, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hill, C. J.

Few rented land to Wilson and Reese, who were to cultivate it in cotton and corn for one-half of the crop. Mitchell took a crop mortgage from Wilson and Reese for supplies furnished them. The tenants failed to properly cultivate all the land and gather the crop, and Few took possession of the crop and gathered it, and this is a contest between him and Mitchell over it. The first contention is that Few should have been allowed one-half the expenses of gathering the crop, but the chancellor’s finding in effect gave him that and more, and he has no complaint on that score. The other contentions are for damages against the tenants claimed to be prior to the mortgagee’s rights. Few contends for $50 damages for neglect of the crop and. for rental value of lands not cultivated in violation of the contract and for other sums for violations of the contract. The landlord’s lien is primarily for rent alone, and has been extended by statute to advances of necessary supplies, money, etc. Kirby’s Digest, § § 5032-3. It can not be extended beyond the terms of the statute, and the claims here asserted are not within the statute. The right of a third party has intervened, and he can demand that his mortgage be given priority over other claims which do not fall within the statute.

The chancellor had a correct view of the law, and his findings of fact are sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.

McCulloch, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.W. 983, 80 Ark. 243, 1906 Ark. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/few-v-mitchell-ark-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack