Rhodes v. Smith-Douglass Fertilizer Co.

BaRNI-iill, J. A landlord’s lien for rent is superior to that of all other liens and any and all crops raised by the lessee on the lands leased are deemed to be vested in possession of the lessor or his assigns at all *23 times until tbe rents are paid. C. S., 2355. As tbe lease is not required to be in writing, C. S., 2355,. tbe execution of tbe rent note merely constituted evidence of tbe contract. An agricultural lien for advances, wben in writing, takes priority over all other liens except tbe laborer’s and landlord’s liens to tbe extent of advances made thereunder. C. S., 2488. "When Highsmith, tbe landlord, executed tbe agricultural lien for advances which is now held by tbe defendant be thereby transferred and assigned, as security for tbe payment thereof, all crops cultivated during tbe year 1939 upon tbe lands described in tbe lien. At that time as landlord of Sherrod be was vested with tbe title in possession of crops cultivated by Sherrod as security for tbe payment of bis rent. His contract conveyed bis right therein. Tbe lien executed by him takes priority over all other claims and is superior to any right of tbe plaintiff Slade Ebodes & Company. Thus it is written in tbe statute. While it is agreed that Sherrod received no part of tbe advances made under tbe agricultural lien this will not avail him. Tbe lienee discharged bis obligation wben be furnished tbe supplies to tbe lienor. He is not required to see to it that such supplies are used upon tbe farm or by any particular tenant. Womble v. Leach, 83 N. C., 84; Wooten v. Hill, 98 N. C., 48; Collins v. Bass, 198 N. C., 99, 150 S. E., 706. Under tbe statute tbe rights of tbe bolder of tbe lien may not be defeated by proof that tbe tenants of tbe landlord-lienor failed to receive any part of tbe advances made under tbe contract. Tbe appellant cites and relies upon Clark v. Farrar, 74 N. C., 686, contending that tbe prerequisites of a valid agricultural lien as therein defined have not been met by tbe defendant for that it is admitted that no money or supplies were advanced to plaintiff Sherrod. Tbe decision is sound but tbe contention is not. Tbe defendant met its obligation wben it made advances to tbe landlord, tbe lienor. Tbe risk that tbe landlord might create a lien upon tbe crops to be raised by Sherrod, which has been so unfortunate for him, was assumed by him wben be entered into bis contract of rental. Thigpen v. Leigh, 93 N. C., 47; Thigpen v. Maget, 107 N. C., 39. Tbe facts disclose that tbe defendant is entitled to tbe $96.00, proceeds of crops raised by Sherrod. Hence, we concur in tbe conclusion of tbe court below. Tbe judgment below is Affirmed.