BUTT
v.
ELLETT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A lessor's lien attached to crops grown under a lease agreement when the crops came into existence, even though the mortgage clause in the lease was executed before the crops were planted and could not operate at that time. The Court held that when the lessor's property was sold at a sheriff's sale, the buyer acquired all the lessor's rights to collect rent and enforce the lien, and subsequent purchasers of the cotton who had notice of the lien became trustees of the proceeds for the lien holder's benefit.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice S WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.
The mortgage clause in the contract of lease of the 15th of January, 1867, executed by Sillers and Graham, could not operate as a mortgage, because the crops to which it relates were not then in existence. When the crops grew, the lien attached and bound them effectually from that time.
It is admitted that the cotton in question was one of those crops.
Ellett having bought the premises became clothed with all the rights of Sillers, touching the rent stipulated to be paid by Graham. The sheriff's deed conveyed the reversion, and the rent followed it as an incident. The lease passed by assignment to the grantee, and all its provisions in favor of the lessor enured to the benefit of the assignee. .The appellants had full notice of the rights of Sillers. They read the lease a few days after its execution. Ellett also notified them of his rights and claim. The cotton went impressed with his lien into their hands. When they sold it they took the proceeds in trust for his benefit, and became liable to him for the amount.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1930)…of liberal construction rightly invoked by the petitioners, be deemed excluded from the benefits of the exemption granted by § 29. See Lake Superior Mines y. Lord, 271 U. S. 577, 582; Waggoner Estate v. Wichita County, 273 U. S. 113; Butt v. Ellett, 19 Wall. 544; State v. Snyder, 29 Wyo. 163; Hearne v. Lewis, 78 Texas 276; Condit v. Neighbor, 13 N. J. L. 83; York v. Jones, 2 N. H. 454; Burden v. Thayer, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 76, 78; Nelson v. Joshel, 305 Ill. 420, 428; Frerich v. Abrams, 97 Wash. [*369] 460, 462;…
-
Express Co. v. R.R. Co., 99 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1878)
-
Briggs v. United States, 143 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1892)…ates was not then in existence, but from tbe fact that it was raised during tbe year we conclude it was already planted; tbougb if otberwise? the fact would not be material. Tbe sale would take effect tbe moment tbe crop appeared. In Butt v. Ellett, 19 Wall. 544, the question was as to tbe efféct of an instrument purporting to be. a mortgage of a crop, tbe seed of which bad not been sown. A plantation in Mississippi was leased for one year for $3500, for which the lessee gaye bis note, and to. secure it emb…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence