Ransom v. Eastern Cotton Oil Co.

165 S.E. 350, 203 N.C. 193, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 347

Opinion

Connor, J.

On the facts shown by all the evidence at the trial- of this action, plaintiffs had a statutory lien on all the crops grown on their lands by "W. P. Boone, during the year 1930, for the amount advanced by them to enable the said W. P. Boone to cultivate the said land (C. S., 2355), unless the plaintiffs failed to conform to the provisions of C. S., 2485, with respect to commissions charged in lieu of interest for such advances. There was no evidence tending to show that plaintiffs charged or received from their tenant, W. P. Boone, any sums as commissions on the advancement made to him by them. There was therefore no error in the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, and in the instructions of the court to the jury. It was held in Powell v. Perry, 127 N. C., 22, 37 S. E., 276, that where a landlord either pays or becomes responsible for supplies to enable the tenant to make a crop, such supjdies are advances for which the landlord has a lien on tbe crops. Tbis lien is superior to all other liens and as against a third party who had acquired possession of the crops the landlord is entitled to recover the amount due for the advancements, provided the value of the crops exceeds the amount due. The judgment is offirmed.

No error.