{
  "id": 3467189,
  "name": "FARMERS GRAIN AND SUPPLY COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT SKINNER et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farmers Grain & Supply Co. v. Skinner",
  "decision_date": "1987-09-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201487\u20140082",
  "first_page": "201",
  "last_page": "203",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 Ill. App. 3d 201"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "117 Ill. App. 3d 1001",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3481151
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1005"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/117/1001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2750799
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/91/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        820125
      ],
      "year": 1879,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/67/0395-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 4836,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.787,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32753801476456734
    },
    "sha256": "63f337cd694752b0f43597b963e2a45be18e9d846eecdd807646c20db3fd9ef8",
    "simhash": "1:bef84c919c23dec6",
    "word_count": 805
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:58.396413+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FARMERS GRAIN AND SUPPLY COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT SKINNER et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFaced with a conflict between a landlord\u2019s statutory crop lien for rent and an agricultural supplier\u2019s perfected security interest in proceeds from the sale of crops grown on the rented land, the trial court determined that the landlord\u2019s lien has priority. The supplier of the agricultural products appeals. We affirm.\nIn January of 1985, John Welch verbally agreed to lease approximately 200 acres of his farmland to Robert Skinner. The terms of the lease provided that Skinner would pay Welch $5,500 on June 1, 1985, and $10,500 on January 1, 1986, for a total of $16,000 cash rent for the 1985 crop year. During the spring of 1985, Skinner requested M&W Ag Service, Inc. (M & W) to apply chemicals and fertilizer to the land owned by Welch. Unable to pay cash for the chemicals and fertilizer, Skinner agreed to grant M & W a security interest in the 1985 crops to be grown on Welch\u2019s land. M&W perfected the security interest by filing a financing statement pursuant to article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 26, par. 9\u2014 101 et seq.) Skinner made no rent payments or payments to M & W.\nSkinner\u2019s 1985 crops were harvested and held by Farmers Grain and Supply Company. Welch and Farmers Grain and Supply Company filed a complaint against Skinner, M & W, and other landowners not involved in this appeal, alleging that Welch had a landlord\u2019s crop lien which took precedence over M & W\u2019s security interest. The trial court agreed and granted Welch\u2019s motion for summary judgment. The court entered judgment against Skinner in the amount of $16,000 for the rent due plus costs and ordered all crop proceeds from Welch\u2019s farm to be turned over to Welch.\nThe sole issue in dispute is whether a landlord\u2019s statutory crop lien for rent has priority over an article 9 security interest in proceeds from the sale of crops grown on the leased farmland. We find that it does.\nSection 9 \u2014 316 of Illinois\u2019 Code of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:\n\u201cEvery landlord shall have a lien upon the crops grown or growing upon the demised premises for the rent thereof, whether the same is payable wholly or in part in money or specific articles of property or products of the premises, or labor, and also for the faithful performance of the terms of the lease.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 9 \u2014 316.)\nIllinois courts have held for over a century that a landlord\u2019s crop lien is superior to all other types of liens. Thompson v. Mead (1873), 67 Ill. 395; Wetsel v. Mayers (1879), 91 Ill. 497.\nArticle 9 of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code outlines the priorities among conflicting security interests in the same collateral. However, article 9\u2019s priority rules do not apply when one of the conflicting interests is a landlord\u2019s crop lien, because article 9 expressly exempts landlords\u2019 liens from the scope of its coverage. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 26, par. 9 \u2014 104(b).) M & W acknowledges this exemption, but argues that modern farming conditions make application of the rule impractical and unfair. M & W proposes that the priority between the landlord\u2019s lien and an article 9 security interest be determined by an equitable apportionment rule allocating the collateral between the opposing lienholders based on the respective amounts due each party. We disagree.\nThis issue was previously considered by the Fourth District in Dwyer v. Cooksville Grain Co. (1983), 117 Ill. App. 3d 1001. When determining whether a landlord\u2019s crop lien or a bank\u2019s security interest in the landlord\u2019s crops grown on the property had priority, the court found that the landlord\u2019s crop lien took precedence. Noting that the language in article 9 makes it clear that no part of the article applies to a landlord\u2019s statutory lien for crops, the court concluded that a landlord\u2019s crop lien \u201cstill has superiority over all other interests, including those created under article 9.\u201d (117 Ill. App. 3d 1001, 1005.) We agree with the reasoning and result in the Dwyer case.\nUnder established Dlinois law, a landlord\u2019s lien for crops is paramount. Adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code has not altered the superiority of the landlord\u2019s lien. As defendant noted, farming conditions have indeed changed. Production financing is now commonplace. However, recognition of this factor does not warrant disregard of the clear terms of the Commercial Code and the established body of case law relating to the paramount nature of a landlord\u2019s lien for crops.\nAccordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nBARRY, P.J., and SCOTT, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles Godbey, of Aledo (Karl Bredberg, of counsel), for appellee John Welch."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FARMERS GRAIN AND SUPPLY COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT SKINNER et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201487\u20140082\nOpinion filed September 28, 1987.\nCharles Godbey, of Aledo (Karl Bredberg, of counsel), for appellee John Welch."
  },
  "file_name": "0201-01",
  "first_page_order": 223,
  "last_page_order": 225
}