{
  "id": 8629999,
  "name": "ELLEN M. BROOKS, Executrix, v. MRS. P. C. GARRETT and ROY GARRETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brooks v. Garrett",
  "decision_date": "1928-04-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "452",
  "last_page": "453",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 452"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 1053",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662788
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/1053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 A. L. R., 300",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654469
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649479
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0141-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4387,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073284967579191
    },
    "sha256": "77ed9225719f1a0dbaf60ab42746f39551fcdeb4f4250af33c9fe47a2047d5a1",
    "simhash": "1:0dbaae87440c694a",
    "word_count": 775
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELLEN M. BROOKS, Executrix, v. MRS. P. C. GARRETT and ROY GARRETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeogbeN, J.\nThe question is this: Is a wheat crop planted in one year and harvested by the same tenant, in another, liable for advancements furnished generally by the landlord and prior to the sowing thereof ?\nThe landlord\u2019s lien does not attach to a crop made entirely in a year subsequent to that in which the advancements are furnished to the tenant. Ballard & Co. v. Johnson, 114 N. C., 141; Fleming v. Davenport, 116 N. C., 153. See, also, 9 A. L. R., 300.\nC. S., 2355, provides a lien upon \u201cany and all crops raised on said lands\u201d for rent and advancements made by the landlord \u201cand expenses incurred in making and saving said crops.\u201d This statutory lien in favor of the landlord by express declaration \u201cshall be preferred to all other liens.\u201d Public Laws 1925, chapter 302, reenacts O. S., 2480, and provides that a lien for advancements made by a supplyman \u201cshall continue to be good and effective as to any crop or crops which may be harvested after the end of the said year, but that the said lien shall be effective only as to those crops planted within the calendar year of the execution of said lien, and referred to in the said lien.\u201d It is clear therefore that a supplyman would have a lien upon the wheat crop in controversy, even though it was harvested after the end of the year in which the supplies were furnished.\nThe statute further provides that the lien of supplyman shall be preferred to all other liens \u201cexcept laborer\u2019s and landlord\u2019s lien, to the extent of such advances.\u201d This legislative declaration is broad and explicit enough to sustain the judgment, because it expressly recognizes the superior priority of a landlord\u2019s lien. The wheat crop was certainly a crop \u201craised on said land\u201d as specified in C. S., 2355. In S. v. Crook, 132 N. C., 1053, the Court said: \u201cHay is not cultivated like cotton, any more than wheat is cultivated in the sense that corn is, but the court could not therefore lay down the proposition that either wheat or hay is \u201cnot a cultivated crop.\u201d A case directly in point is Miles v. James, 36 Ill., p. 399. That case involved a wheat crop planted in one year and harvested in another. The Court said in referring to the statute in that State, \u201cthe design was to give the landlord a lien upon all crops growing or grown during the year that the rent accrued, and there seems to be no escape from the conclusion, that as this wheat was growing in both years, the rent of each year became a lien upon it, which the landlord may enforce.\u201d\nThe statutes of this State, applicable to the question, make no distinction between the lien of landlord for rent and for advancements made by him, but place both upon a parity.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeogbeN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Royster & Royster for plaintiff.",
      "John W. Hester for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELLEN M. BROOKS, Executrix, v. MRS. P. C. GARRETT and ROY GARRETT.\n(Filed 11 April, 1928.)\nAgriculture \u2014 Agricultural Liens \u2014 Crops on .Which Lien for Advancements Rest \u2014 Landlord and Tenant \u2014 Lien for Rent.\nWhere a landlord furnishes his tenant advancements for the making of crops, the lien for the rent and for advancements are in equal degree, and now attach, since the amendment of C. S., 2480, by chapter 302, Public Laws 1925, to the crops raised by the tenant on the same lands, planted during one calendar year and harvested in the next.\nCivil ACTION before Bond, J., at February Term, 1928, of GeaNville.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s testator was a landowner in Granville County and rented a certain farm to P. C. Garrett, now deceased, for agricultural purposes. During the year 1925 the landlord furnished certain supplies, for agricultural purposes, during said year to the tenant. In the fall of 1925 the tenant sowed about six bushels of wheat furnished him by said landlord upon the lands of the landlord. The wheat was harvested in 1926 by the tenant, who paid the seed wheat and the portion of the crop due as rent. The tenant, however, refused'to pay out of the wheat a balance due the landlord for advances made during the year 1925, prior to sowing the wheat crop in November of that year. Thereupon the landlord seized the wheat crop consisting of 40 bushels, under claim and delivery. The tenant replevied the wheat and when the cause came on for trial the parties agreed that the judge should find the facts and award judgment.\nUpon the foregoing facts the trial judge awarded judgment to the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.\nRoyster & Royster for plaintiff.\nJohn W. Hester for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0452-01",
  "first_page_order": 524,
  "last_page_order": 525
}