Taylor v. Nelson
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Copiah County. Hon. S. S. CalhooN, Judge. Under the act of 1878 the landlord has an interest in the crop to the extent of his rent, as between himself and the tenant. The transfer of the rent contract to Nelson, if intended as a pledge of this interest in the cotton, was yoid, because there was neither delivery nor registration of the trust.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Copiah County. Hon. S. S. CalhooN, Judge. Under the act of 1878 the landlord has an interest in the crop to the extent of his rent, as between himself and the tenant. The transfer of the rent contract to Nelson, if intended as a pledge of this interest in the cotton, was yoid, because there was neither delivery nor registration of the trust. It is not a security for debt, but an undivided interest in property, and requires a partition proceeding to get the shares separated. It can be pledged or conveyed in trust as to creditors or subsequent incumbrancers only by…
1Opinion of the CourtSxmrall, C. J.
The only question is, which of the parties litigant has the priority. It arises on these facts: On Feb. 16, 1874, J. B. Jones leased a part of his farm to Alexander and Duke Beesly, for four thousand pounds of seed cotton, to be ginned and baled. On the 28th of the same month, Jones, in writing, assigned this lease to B. F. Nelson, as collateral security for a debt of $157, which he owed to him on a promissory note due Jan. 1, 1874. Subsequent to these transactions, the Beeslys, who had notice of the assignment to Nelson, delivered the baled cotton to Jones, who received it for Nelson, *525put it…
2Cited by3 opinions
- H. & C. Newman v. Bank of GreenvilleMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
- Powell v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court · 1896
- Fuller v. RippieSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917