White v. . Riddle

BuogdeN, J. Is a laborer’s lien, duly perfected, on a crop, superior to an agricultural lien and chattel mortgage upon said crop, duly recorded? The laborer began work on the crop on 1 February, 1927, and the agricultural lien and chattel mortgage were executed on 24 February, 1927. O. S., 2472, 2480, and 2488 provide a lien for laborers in order that the work of their hands may be securely safeguarded and preserved. C. S., 2472, declares in plain and unequivocal language that a laborer’s lien upon a crop “shall be preferred to every other lien or encumbrance which attached to the crop subsequent to the time at which the work was commenced.” C. S., 2470, provides for the filing of notice of lien. If the notice is properly filed, then the lien reaches back to the time when the work was commenced. It has been uniformly declared by the Court that, a lien properly filed upon real estate and the right resulting therefrom asserted in apt time, relates back to the beginning of the work or furnishing of material, and as against such lien, even the rights of innocent purchasers cannot prevail. Burr v. Maultsby, 99 N. C., 263; Harris v. Cheshire, 189 N. C., 219, 126 S. E., 593; King v. Elliott, 197 N. C., 93. There is no sound reason why the same principle should not apply to crops. Indeed, the principle announced in Burr v. Maultsby, supra, has been invoked by this Court in support of placing the lien of the laborer upon a crop upon the same basis as the lien, of a laborer upon a piece of land. In Rouse v. Wooten, 104 N. C., 229, 10 S. E., 190, the Court said: “It may be said that persons who take ‘agricultural liens’ cannot have knowledge of such rights of the cropper, as his contract is not required to be registered. But they must take notice of the cropper’s rights, just as they do the like rights and labor contracts of agricultural tenants. They take such liens at their peril; they should make proper inquiry before taking them. It might be better to require notice of a cropper’s contract to be registered, as required in case of the laborer’s lien, but the statute does not so require. . . . The lessor, landlord or employer cannot consume or dispose of the crop himself, nor can his assigns, nor can they encumber it, to the prejudice of the cropper. Any sale of, or lien created upon it, is made subject to his right; otherwise the remedy thus given would be meaningless and nugatory- — -an empty pretense and a mockery of him whose labor had contributed to the production of the crop. The statute does not intend this. It intends to encourage and favor the laborer as to those matters and things upon which his labor has been bestowed, and that he shall certainly reap the just benefit of his toil.” *514 While it is suggested that the House case dealt with a division of the crop, it is to be observed that the Court held that a cropper was “a laborer receiving pay in a share of the crop.” McCoy v. Wood, 70 N. C., 125; Warren v. Woodard, 70 N. C., 382. The notice of lien must, however, show upon its face substantial compliance with the statute. Cook v. Cobb, 101 N. C., 68, 7 S. E., 700; King v. Elliott, supra. C. S., 2471, provides that liens “shall be paid and settled according to priority of the notice of the lien filed with the justice or the clerk.” This section has been construed in Mfg. Co. v. Andrews, 165 N. C., 285, 81 S. E., 418, in which case it was held that the section applied only to liens “required to be filed with the proper officers,” etc. The defendant claims a lien by virtue of a chattel mortgage and agricultural lien. No notice of such a lien is required to be filed with a justice or the clerk. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to interest. This contention cannot be sustained. While there is wide divergence of judicial opinion upon the subject, this Court has adopted the theory that in tort actions for conversion, interest is allowable in the discretion of the jury. Stephens v. Koonce, 103 N. C., 266, 9 S. E., 315; Lance v. Butler, 135 N. C., 419, 47 S. E., 488. The Court concludes and adjudges that the plaintiff has a first lien upon the entire crop for the amount of his claim. Reversed.