Grissom v. . Pickett
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Motion to vacate an attachment, heard before Boykin, Judge, at Spring Term, 1886, of ÁNSON Superior Court. The plaintiff and the defendant W. M. Pickett, late in December, 1884, entered into an agreement, by the terms of which the said defendant was to furnish land for cultivation during the succeeding year, with three mules to be worked on it and fed, and the necessary farming implements, while the plaintiff was to supply all the labor and look after and manage all the…
Read the full summary
Motion to vacate an attachment, heard before Boykin, Judge, at Spring Term, 1886, of ÁNSON Superior Court. The plaintiff and the defendant W. M. Pickett, late in December, 1884, entered into an agreement, by the terms of which the said defendant was to furnish land for cultivation during the succeeding year, with three mules to be worked on it and fed, and the necessary farming implements, while the plaintiff was to supply all the labor and look after and manage all the farming operations until the crop was made and gathered, when after paying such expenses as were incurred and not provided…
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reynolds Bros. v. PoolSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- Eason Ex Rel. Eason v. DewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Keith v. LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Stallings v. KeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937