Wayne County NcArchives Court.....Amos Smith, H.H. Coor And Wife V. 1888
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 February 4, 2009, 8:53 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1888

H.H. Coor and wife v. Amos Smith 

From Wayne

Spring Term 1888

Mortgagee and Mortgagor - Possession - Crops

The mortgagee of lands, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, is 
entitled to all the crops which may be produced upon it from year to year 
until the secured debt is paid, although they are the product of the 
mortgagor's cultivation under a possession permitted by the mortgagee. 

This is a civil action, which was tried before Shipp, at Spring Term, 1888, of 
Wayne Superior Court. 

The following is so much of the case stated on appeal as need be repeated 
here: 

It was agreed that the crop, the detention of which was the subject of this 
action, was raised during the year 1887 be the defendant on land bought by him 
of the plaintiffs on December 6th, 1882, and that the defendant, in payment of 
said land, on the said 6th day of December, 1882, executed seven promissory 
notes to the plaintiff, H.A. Coor, by which he promised to pay her thirty five 
bales, 500 pounds each, of good middling lint cotton, five bales on the 1st of 
November of each year for 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886,1887, 1888; and to secure the 
payment of the same executed a mortgage on the lands so conveyed to him by the 
plaintiff, which mortgage, after conveying land, contained the ollowing: "Also 
all crops of every kind raised on said land shall be surety for the annual 
payment of each year, and shall not be removed from said land until the note 
due that year is paid in full." 

It was further admitted that the note for 1887 was due and unpaid when this 
action was brought, and is still due and unpaid, except three bales of cotton, 
delivered thereon during the fall of 1882. 

The defendant resisted a recovery, on the ground that the mortgage does not 
vest in the plaintiffs a sufficient interest in the crops to be raised on said 
lands to enable them to sustain this action of claim and delivery; "and for 
the further reason," that a valid mortgage cannot be given of crops to be 
raised, except for those to be raised the year next after the execution of the 
mortgage. 

After hearing the argument, the Court, being of the opinion that the 
plaintiffs were entitled to recover, gave judgment for the plaintiffs, 
declaring H.A. Coor to be the owner and entitled to the possession of the 
crops seized, and to apply the same in discharge of the note due on November 
1st, 1887, and for the cost of this action. 

From which judgment the defendant appealed. 

Mr. W. R. Allen, for the plaintiffs. 
No counsel for the defendant. 

Merrimon, J. The feme plaintiff sold and conveyed the land mentioned to the 
defendant, taking his promissory notes, coming due at different times, for the 
purchase money, and at once took from him a mortgage of the land and the crops 
to be produced thereon from year to year, for the time specified to secure the 
payment of the notes as they severally came due. The mortgagee, as such, was 
entitled to the land, and in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to all 
the crop that might be produced upon it from year to year, until the debts 
secured by the mortgage should be discharged. The defendant mortgagor remained 
in possession of the land, not as of right, but by permission of the 
mortgagee, and the crops produced, including that in question, belonged to the 
latter for the purposes of the mortgage, although produced by the labor of the 
former. 

The clause of the deed of mortgage expressly conveying the crops to be 
produced on the lands from year to year was unnecessary, because, without it 
they belonged to the mortgagee. It did not in any degree abridge her rights. 
As the crops were hers she could agree with the mortgagor to apply them from 
time to time as provided in the mortgage. 

It is unnecessary to advert here to the nature and extent of the right of the 
defendant to have compensation for cultivating the crops.

So that the objections urged and relied upon in opposition to the plaintiffs' 
right to recover, are not applicable to this case, and we need not consider 
them. 

Affirmed.


File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/wayne/court/amossmit853wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 4.7 Kb