Grissom v. . Pickett

Smith, C. J., (after stating the case). While it may not be easy to distinguish the arrangement for the cultivation of the lands for the joint benefit of the contracting parties from that made in Reynolds v. Pool, 84 N. C., 37, and in Curtis v. Cash, Ibid., 41, where it was held that the relations of copart-ners had been formed, we do not deem it needful to put our ruling upon that ground. The case is not in our opinion withing the letter or purpose of the enactment giving liens as contained in The Code, §§ 1781 and 1782. The first creates the lien upon the property on which labor has been expended, or to which materials have been contributed, not generally, but “for the payment of all debts contracted for work done on the same, or material furnished.” The next section, without enlarging the scope of the other, gives efficac}>' to the lien or encumbrance, which attached *57 subsequent to the time when thework was begun, or the materials were furnished. It is quite obvious that debts onty are provided for, that is, claims for labor or materials supplied to be paid for as such, so that between the employé and the employer were formed the relations of debtor and creditor. Such were the claims intended to be secured, and not such as might grow out of an agreement, wherein, as in our case, compensation was to be sought in its fruits, which are contingent and uncertain. Nor, in our opinion, can the joint arrangement, because of a violation of its terms by one party, and the election of the other to abandon it in consequence, be converted into a case of debtor and creditor, so as to bring the claim within the Act, whatever may be the result in the personal relations of the parties. The plaintiff chose to look to the result of the year’s farming operations, and to seek remuneration for his work in a share of the crops, and for any breach of the defendant’s obligations may obtain redress commensurate with the injury suffered. But he is not at liberty, without regard to results, to fall back upon an implied contract, so as to give it the same operation under the statute as if it had been the original contract, when in fact it was not. The enactment protects those who work or supply materials, and who, but for it, would have no security beyond that of the personal obligations of the employer. The order for the attachment was therefore improvidently made, and we concur in the action of the Court in recalling it and dissolving the attachment. No error. Affirmed.