Trimble v. Durham
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Coahoma county. Hon. E. W. Williamson, Judge. Appellant rented land to one Hopson-, taking his note for "the agreed rent. She also sold him two mules with which to make a crop, taking a separate note for their price, and reciting in it that she retained a lien on the mules and crop until the note should be paid. Appellee, Durham, sub-rented a part of the land from Hopson.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Coahoma county. Hon. E. W. Williamson, Judge. Appellant rented land to one Hopson-, taking his note for "the agreed rent. She also sold him two mules with which to make a crop, taking a separate note for their price, and reciting in it that she retained a lien on the mules and crop until the note should be paid. Appellee, Durham, sub-rented a part of the land from Hopson. The latter did not make enough crop to pay for the mules, and Mrs. Trimble ■took possession of the cotton grown by Durham, the under-tenant, and applied it to the payment of the indebtedness for the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
Mules sold by the landlord to his tenant are as necessary to the cultivation and production of crops as mules rented. If the tenant has no team, as is generally the case, there can be no cultivation or production of crops unless'the landlord makes the advances necessary to supply the need. Why the lien exists for rent of mules, and not for the purchase-price of mules sold, we are unable to see. And why food and farming utensils, and provender for stock, are supplies, and the all-important mule is not, we are unable to see. Every thing furnished to make the crop, all advances for necessary and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Sanders CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1923
- Hart v. GardnerMississippi Supreme Court · 1902
- Daugherty v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Earl v. MaloneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906