{
  "id": 8658625,
  "name": "POWELL v. PERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Powell v. Perry",
  "decision_date": "1900-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. 22"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 2081,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6856254361847664e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8921002730275008
    },
    "sha256": "de098196dce271324e3783d078dd9e973c6ce16f963b88a44b41430b31b523fe",
    "simhash": "1:be7ad6250c2a382b",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:22.932964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "POWELL v. PERRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.\nThe only question presented is whether, when a landlord pays another for supplies which have been furnished to his tenant to make the crop, upon the landlord\u2019s promise to be responsible for the same, such supplies are an \u201cadvancement\u201d entitled to the protection of the landlord\u2019s lien given by Code, sec. 1754. We think this falls within both the spirit and the letter of the enactment. It was upon the credit given to the landlord\u2019s promise that the supplies were furnished which enabled the tenant to make the crop. It was equally an advancement by the landlord, whether he furnished the supplies direct, or procured another to do so upon his (the landlord\u2019s) responsibility; and it is immaterial whether he paid cash, or only promised to pay if the tenant did not. In either event the supplies are furnished by the landlord\u2019s aid, and for whatever.be is out of pocket thereby, whether he pays before the goods are furnished, or after the tenant\u2019s failure to pay, he is entitled to the lien given by statute to any landlord making \u201cadvancements\u201d to his tenant. Though here the plaintiff did not pay the amount of the bill for supplies till after he instituted this action against the defendant, who had seized the tenant\u2019s crop, the lien upon such payment dated back (like laborers\u2019 and mechanics\u2019 liens, and liens for materials furnished)to the time when the supplies had been furnished upon the plaintiff\u2019s promise to pay for them. The cause of action existed against the defendant upon his taking the crop upon which the landlord had an inchoate lien. The nonsuit is set aside.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George Gowper, for plaintiff.",
      "Winborne & Lawrence, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "POWELL v. PERRY.\n(October 9, 1900.)\nLandlord and Tenant \u2014 Advances\u2014Lien.\nWhere a landlord either pays or. becomes responsible for supplies to enable tenant to make a crop, such supplies are advances.\nCivil ActioN of Claim and Delivery by J. M. Powell against J. W. Perry, beard by Judge H. B. Bryan, at Special Term,February 26,1900, of Hertbokd Superior Court. Erom judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed.\nGeorge Gowper, for plaintiff.\nWinborne & Lawrence, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 52,
  "last_page_order": 53
}