#### Snerly v. Stacey.

Opinion delivered October 3, 1927.

*980 George C. Lewis, for appellant.

W. A. Leach and Jolm R. Ingram, for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). The only question for determination is whether the mortgage given on the crop 'by Bullock to appellant, Snerly, constituted a valid and subsisting lien on the rice crop grown on the *981lands by Beard, a tenant, under Ms lease from Stacey and Mabry, the owners of the land.

It is undisputed that no rice crop had been planted on the lands by Bullock, who, in 1924, mortgaged one-third of the rice crop for 1925 to Snerly, at the time of his conveyance of the lands to Stacey and Mabry on the 20th day of April, 1925; that the crop of rice was planted and produced by their tenant, Beard, no supplies whatever being furnished by Bullock, who had no interest whatever in the crop produced..

Mortgages on crops to be grown in the future constitute no lien upon the land upon which they are to be produced, and the lien formerly did not attach to the crop until it came in esse. The lien then attaches only to such interest as the mortgagor may have in the crop at that time. Jones on Chattel Mortgages, § 143a; Christianson v. Nelson, 76 Minn. 36, 78 N. W. 875; Hall v. State, 2 Ga. App. 739, 59 S. E. 26; O’Connell v. St. Louis Joint Stock Land Bank, 170 Ark. 778, 281 S. W. 385.

Our statutes, C. & M. Digest, §§ 7391-2, provide that mortgages on crops to be planted shall have the same force and effect to bind such crops and their products as other mortgages now have to bind property already in being, requiring only that the crops shall be planted within 12 months after the execution of the mortgage. This statute does not change the .law with reference to the subject-matter of the chattel mortgage, so far .as enlargement of the power of the mortgagor to create a lien on the property in excess of his interest therein is concerned.

In O’Connell v. St. Louis Joint Stock Land Bank, supra, the court said:

> “* •* * The fact that the mortgagor was, at the time of the execution of the chattel mortgage, in actual occupancy of the land on which the mortgaged crop was to be grown did not afford grounds under the statute to extend the lien to crops grown by other persons after the mortgagor had been legally dispossessed.”

*982The mortgage executed by Bullock to Snerly could uot extend to crops raised by the tenant of Stacey and Mabry after the conveyance of the lands to them, said mortgagor having no interest in such crops, which were not raised by him, but were planted and raised by the tenant of his grantees, the then owners of the land.

This holding can make no difference in the decree, however, the lower court having held that the mortgagees Df the owners of the land were entitled to payment of their claim out of the crop proceeds before anything could be realized under the crop mortgage to appellant, since there is not enough of the funds on hand to satisfy the claim of the power company under its valid mortgage.

The decree is accordingly affirmed.