« AnteriorContinuar »
The statute is unconstitutional as class | 6th ed. § 681; Sutherland, Stat. Constr. legislation.
$ 121; Luman v. Hitchens Bros. Co. 90 Md. Yeatman v. King, 2 N. D. 421, 33 Am. 14, 46 L.R.A. 393, 44 Atl. 1051; Moher v. St. Rep. 797, 51 N. W. 728; Vermont Loan Rasmusson, 12 N. D. 71, 95 N. W. 152; & T. Co. v. Whithed, 2 N. D. 82, 49 N. W. First Nat. Bank v. Scott, 7 N. D. 312, 75 318; Edmonds v. Herbrandson, 2 N. D. 270, N. W. 254; Wright v. Sherman, 3 S. D. 14 L.R.A. 725, 50 N. W. 970; Plummer v. 290, 17 L.R.A. 792, 52 N. W. 1093; Miller Borsheim, 8 N. D. 565, 80 N. W. 690; State v. Anderson, 1 S. D. 539, 11 L.R.A. 317, 47 v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 29 L.R.A. 257, 50 N. W. 959; Owen v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Am. St. Rep. 443, 31 S. W. 781; State v. R. Co. 11 S. D. 153, 74 Am. St. Rep. 786, Walsh, 136 Mo. 400, 35 L.R.A. 233, 37 S. 76 N. W. 302. W. 1112; State v. Minor, 33 W. Va. 179, Plaintiff did not waive its mortgage in 6 L.R.A. 621, 25 Am. St. Rep. 863, 10 S. E. favor of the Boyle Brothers lien. 285; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 380, 52 Am. Muench v. Valley Nat. Bank, 11 Mo. App. Rep. 34, 2 N. E. 29; Cooley, Const. Lim. I 144; Stribling v. Splint Coal Co. 31 W. Va. tools for his reasonable charges, which is the property by the mortgagor in his busisuperior to the prior mortgage, as, notwith- ness, and giving him apparent ownership, standing the mortgagee's ownership after impliedly authorized the repairs necessary condition broken, it must be held to have for the preservation and continued use of been in the contemplation of the mortgagee the property. Tucker v. Werner, 2 Misc. that the property would be repaired, it be- 193, 21 N. Y. Supp. 264. ing of such a character as suggests use, Where the mortgagee of a wagon permits and that repairs would become necessary the mortgagor to retain possession and use for its proper use and preservation; and it in his business, and the mortgagor has the enhancement of value added by the re- necessary repairs made by a blacksmith, pairs creates a lien in favor of the workman without the knowledge or express consent of superior to the mortgage. Kirtley v. Mor the mortgagee, the common-law artificer's ris, 43 Mo. App. 144.
lien of the blacksmith, while he is in possesLikewise, the common-law lien of one sion of the wagon, is superior to the prior who has made necessary repairs upon a chattel mortgage, although it was duly rebuggy bailed to him for that purpose by the corded, as the mortgagee, by permitting mortgagor in possession, who was using the the mortgagor to retain and use the wagon property in his business, and in whom the impliedly authorized him to have such relegal title remained, is superior to the lien pairs made as were necessary to keep it in of a prior mortgage which recites that the condition for use. Ruppert v. Zang, 73 N. J. mortgagor should not so negligently or im- L. 216, 62 Atl. 998. properly use or care for the property as to But "where the lien is purely a statutory subject it to probable loss or material de one, or where the property is of such a charpreciation in value, where the mortgagee acter that it would not be reasonable to anknew that the buggy at times needed re- ticipate the necessity for any needed repairing, and had once seen it left at the shop pairs for the period of time the property is to be repaired; such recitals and circum- to or does remain in the possession of the stances disclosing that the mortgagor had at mortgagor, or when it is but reasonable to least implied authority from the mortgagee expect the mortgagor in person to care for to have the repairs made. Drummond Car- or repair the property, in such cases a difriage Co. v. Mills, 54 Neb. 417, 40 L.R.A. ferent rule may prevail." Watts v, Sween761, 69 Am. St. Rep. 719, 74 N. W. 966. ey, supra.
And a lien for repairs on a hack takes And where a machinist has mortgaged an precedence of a prior mortgage describing engine which he is constructing, an agreethe hack as “now in use” at certain stables, ment by the mortgagee that the mortgagor where the mortgagor retained possession of may go on with the work on the engine, and and used the property agreeably to the finish it, under a previous contract, does terms of the mortgage, as "it was the mani not give the mortgagor a lien, as against fest intention of the parties that the hack the mortgagee, for work done by the former should continue to be driven for hire, and on the engine, or authorize the mortgagor, should be kept in a proper state of repair or anyone having his rights, to employ any for that purpose, not merely for the benefit other party to work on the engine in such of the mortgagee, but for that of the morto a manner as to create a lien for such work gagor also, by preserving the value of the as against the mortgagee. Globe Works v. security and affording a means of earning Wright, 106 Mass. 207. wherewithal to pay off the mortgage debt.” Hammond v. Danielson, 126 Mass. 294.
II. Statutory lien. And the common-law lien of a mechanic for necessary repairs made on a buggy at a. Expressly subject to prior liens, the request of the mortgagor, who had the possession and use thereof in the prosecu- Some statutory liens on personal proption of his business, is superior to the lien erty for work and labor are expressly subof a prior, duly filed chattel mortgage, as ject to prior liens, and while the question the mortgagee, by authorizing the use of under annotation seems never directly to L.R. 1.1915D.
82, 5 S. E. 321; Wright v. Sherman, 3 S., N. Y. Supp. 145; Ripley v. Ætna L. Ins. D. 290, 17 L.R.A. 792, 52 N. W. 1093; Co. 30 N. Y. 138, 86 Am. Dec. 362; Bucklen Kansas City Sav. Asso. v. Mastin, 61 Mo. v. Johnson, 19 Ind. App. 406, 49 N. E. 612; 435; First Nat. Bank v. Maxwell, 123 Cal. Re Auerbach, 23 Utah, 529, 65 Pac. 488; 360, 69 Am. St. Rep. 641, 55 Pac. 980; Benneke v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. Ross v. Swan, 7 Lea, 467; Gardner v. New 105 U. S. 355, 26 L, ed. 990; Freedman v. London, 63 Conn. 267, 28 Atl. 42; Smiley Fire Asso. of Philadelphia, 168 Pa. 249, 32 v. Barker, 28 C. C. A. 9, 55 U. S. App. 125, Atl. 39; Johnson v. Schar, 9 S. D. 536, 70 83 Fed. 684; Armstrong v. Agricultural Ins. N. W. 838; St. Louis Electric Light & P. Co. 130 N. Y. 560, 29 N. E. 991; Linwood Co. v. Edison General Electric Co. 64 Fed. Park Co. y. Van Dusen, 63 Ohio St. 183, 997. 58 N. E. 576; Bishop, Contr. § 792; Bal.
On petition for rehearing. four v. Parkinson, 84 Fed. 855; Hollings v. The statutes of this state give no priority Bankers' Union, 63 S. C. 192, 41 S. E. 90; to the lien claimant. Crandall v. Moston, 24 App. Div. 547, 50 Moher v. Rasmusson, 12 N. D. 71, 95 N. have arisen under such a statute, such a charges for transportation and storage at statutory lien is, of course, subordinate to the request of the mortgagor in legal posthe lien of a prior chattel mortgage. See session is superior to a prior chattel mortBurrow v. Fowler, 68 Ark. 178, 30 S. W. gage given since the statute was enacted, 1061.
though duly filed so as to give constructive
notice. Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. b. Expressly superior to other liens. Skellet Co. 124 Minn. 144, 144 N. W. 750.
And these statutes are not unconstituOther statutes giving liens for services tional. Garr v. Clements and Monthly Inon personal property expressly purport to stalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co. supra. make such liens superior to all others. And As stated in Garr v. Clements, supra: these statutes have been construed to create “This statute, in legal effect, informs every liens superior to prior chattel mortgages, ev- mortgagee in every mortgage thereafter en though the lien claimant had knowledge executed that by leaving the mortgaged of the prior mortgage; and, as so construed, property in the possession of the owner he have been held to be constitutional, provided thereby makes the owner his agent for the the prior chattel mortgage was taken sub-purpose of having necessary repairs made, sequently to the passage of the statute in the cost of which will be a first lien upon question, as, in such cases, the mortgagee the property." took the mortgage with at least construc- So, under a statute providing that a tive notice of the statute, and knowledge person keeping a livery stable or boardthat his mortgage might subsequently being stable for animals, or who in conneccome subject to a superior lien for services, tion therewith, keeps or stores any truck, as provided in the statute.
has a lien dependent upon the possession, Thus, under a statute providing that upon each animal boarded by him and “laborers shall have a general lien upon the upon any truck stored or kept, providproperty of their employers, liable to levy ed express or implied agreement is and sale, for their labor, which is hereby made with the owner thereof, whether declared to be superior to all other liens, he be a mortgagor remaining in posexcept liens for taxes, the special liens of session or otherwise, for the due landlords on yearly crops, and such other for the boarding of the animals, or for liens as are declared by law to be superior | the keeping or storing of any truck, under to them,”—the general lien of a laborer the agreement,-a livery stable keeper to is superior to a prior chattel mortgage whom the owner has taken several horses given after the passage of the statute and trucks, to be boarded and kept by giving the lien. Allred v. Haile, 84 Ga. him, including a truck on which was 570, 10 S. E. 1095.
duly filed and renewed chattel mortgage, And under a statute giving a lien for re- has a lien on the mortgaged truck superior pairs to a threshing engine, and provid- to the prior chattel mortgage, for the reaing that “said lien shall have priority sonable charges for the keeping and storover all other liens or encumbrances uponing thereof, but not for the charges for said threshing engine
created sub- the board and storage of the horses and sequent to the passage and approval of this other trucks. Peter Barrett Mfg. Co. v. act, if filed within ten days," etc., a duly Van Ronk, 212 N. Y. 90, 105 N. E. 811, filed mechanic's lien for such repairs is affirming 149 Apr. Div. 194, 133 Y. Y. superior to a prior chattel mortgage ex- Supp. 691, after the denial of a rehearing ecuted after the law took effect. Garr v. and grant of an appeal to the court of Clements, N. D. 562, 62 N. W. 640. appeals, without opinion, in 150 App. Div.
Similarly, under a statute giving a lien 909, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1137. (For other cases to anyone who, “at the request of the owner involving liens for furnishing food or care or legal possessor of any personal prop- for animals, see note in 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) erty,” transports it from one place to an- | 310.) other, or stores it as a warehouseman or And under a statute giving a warehousebailee, a lien on household furniture for a lien for storage charges on goods
W. 152; First Nat. Bank v. Scott, 7 N. D., L.R.A. 416, 40 Pac. 15; Re Lord & P. Chem312, 75 N. W. 254; Gause v. Bullard, 16 ical Co. 7 Del. Ch. 248, 44 Atl. 775. La. Ann. 107; Landry v. Blanchard, 16 La. Mr. Burt M, King, with Mr. R. G. MeAnn. 173; Ryan v. Vanlandingham, 7 Ind. Farland, for respondents Boyle Brothers: 416; Bradley v. New York & N. H. R. Co. Defendants Boyle Brothers were entitled 21 Conn. 294; Vigo County v. Davis, 136 to the relief granted and decreed by the Ind. 503, 22 L.R.A. 5 17, 36 N. E. 141.
lower court, and to the prior and para. The common law is inapplicable to change mount lien as decreed against the plaintiff the language of the statute or grant addi- and plaintiff's mortgage herein. tional rights.
McIntire v. Carver, 2 Watts & S. 392, 37
Am. Dec. 519; Garr v. Clements, 4 N. D. State v. Smith, 2 N. D. 515, 52 N. W
562, 62 N. W. 640; Williams v. Allsup, 10 320; Duncan v. Great Northern R. Co. 17
C. B. N. S. 417, 30 L. J. C. P. N. S. 353, N. D. 610, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 952, 118 N. W.18 Jur. N. S. 57, 4 L. T. N. S. 550; Ham820; Banbury v. Sherin, 4 S. D. 88, 55 N mond v. Danielson, 126 Mass. 294; Watts W. 724; McClain v. Williams, 11 S. D. 227, | v. Sweeney, 127 Ind. 116, 22 Am. St. Rep. 49 L.R.A. 610, 74 Am. St. Rep. 791, 70 615, 26 N. E. 680; Scott v. Delahunt, 65 N. W. 930; Re Comassi, 107 Cal. 1, 28 ' N. Y. 128; Tucker v. Werner, 2 Misc. 193, left with him and stored, and providing | made on a traction engine at the request that he may detain such goods until the of the mortgagor is not preferred to lien is paid, a warehouseman is entitled prior chattel mortgage which was duly to the payment of his lawful charges for filed or recorded so as to give constructive storing goods before being required to sur notice. A. H. Averill Machinery Co. v. Allrender possession to a prior mortgagee. britton, 51 Wash. 30, 97 Pac. *1082. Industrial Loan Asso. v. Saul, 34 Misc. And a statutory lien on a crop for the 188, 68 N. Y. Supp. 837.
wages of a laborer producing it cannot be And under a statute giving a lien upon superior to a chattel mortgage given before personal property for labor performed the passage of the statute, as "the legis
11 within six months next proeeeding the fil. lature could not create a statutory lien ing of a claim of lien, and making the which would impair a prior lien expressly continued existence of the lien conditioned permitted by law.” Betts V. Ratliff, 50 upon a filing of a notice of claim of lien Miss. 561. within ninety days after the claimant had ceased to perform the labor, etc., and de. c. Priority not declared by statute. claring that no mortgage, deed of trust, or conveyance shall defeat or take precedence
1. In general. over said lien,-although the statute has been construed not to give such lien a right Where the statute creating a lien for of priority over mortgages which had been services on personal property does not de. executed and recorded prior to the time clare its priority over other liens, or show of the commencement of the labor,-the lien an intention to give preference to the statis superior to the lien of a chattel mort- utory lien, it is generally held not to take gage executed prior to the commencement precedence of a prior chattel mortgage of of the labor, but which is recorded after which the lien claimant had either actual its performance and before the filing of or constructive notice at the time of renthe lien notice, and of which the labor dering his services, unless the mortgagee lien claimant had no notice when he per- expressly or impliedly authorized the mortformed the work, where the labor lien is! gagor to engage the services for which the either perfected by filing a claim of lien lien is claimed. within ninety days after the last labor per- Thus a statutory laborer's lien for har. formed, or is matured in accordance with vesting grain is not superior to a chattel statute, by the property owner's assign- mortgage executed and recorded before the ment or passage into a receivership within grain was ready for harvesting, where the that period. Olsen v. Smith,
statute does not provide for such superior146 Pac. 572.
ity. Wilson v. Donaldson, 121 Cal. 8, 43 But under a statute creating a lien on L.R.A. 524, 66 Am. St. Rep. 17, 53 Pac. 404. personal property in favor of a mechanic And the liens of laborers employed by a who performs labor thereon, and provid- contractor with the mortgagor, to harvest ing that such lien is preferred to any lien, and thresh a crop of grain, are not supermortgage, or other encumbrance which may ior to a prior chattel mortgage. Rourke v. attach subsequently to the time of the com- Bergevin, 4 Idaho, 742, 44 Pac. 645. mencement of the performance of the labor, Likewise, a statutory lien upon a mare and is also preferred to any lien, mortgage, for the benefit of the keeper of a jack does or other encumbrance which may have not take precedence of a prior recorded attached previously to that time, and which mortgage, though executed after the paswas not filed or recorded so as to create sage of the act, where the statute does not constructive notice thereof prior to that evince the intention to give preference to time, and of which the lien claimant had the statutory lien. Easter v. Goyne, 51 no notice,-a mechanic's lien for repairs' Ark. 222, 11 S. W. 212.
21 N. Y. Supp. 264; Meyer v. Berlandi, 40 man, 9 N. D. 140, 81 N. W. 288, affirmed in Minn. 438, 1 L.R.A. 777, 12 Am. St. Rep. 181 U. S. 548, 45 L. ed. 994, 21 Sup. Ct. 663, 40 N. W. 513; White v. Smith, 44 Rep. 703; Notes Dak. Rep. 162, 174; CowN. J. L. 105, 43 Am. Rep. 347; Drummond den v. Wright, 24 Wend. 429, 35 Am. Dec. Carriage Co. v. Mills, 54 Neb. 417, 40 L.R.A. 633. 761, 69 Am. St. Rep. 719, 74 N. W. 966; Kirtley v. Morris, 43 Mo. App. 144; Loss Goss, J., delivered the opinion of the v. Fry, 1 N. Y. City Ct. Rep. 7; Herman, court: Chatt. Mortg. SS 474, 535; Browne, Civil & Plaintiff corporation brings this action to Admiralty Law, p. 204; Jones, Liens, $ 744; foreclose its chattel mortgage upon a thresh8 Cyc. 900, note 90; 36 Cyc. 1173, 1174; ing engine, and to determine priority of Bolton v. Johns, 5 Pa. 145, 47 Am. Dec. liens thereon, and particularly as against a 404; Parkison v. Bracken, 1 Pinney (Wis.) blacksmith's lien filed against the engine by 174, 39 Am. Dec. 296; Vermont Loan & T. Boyle Brothers, defendants. Plaintiff sold Co. v. Whithed, 2 N. D. 82, 49 N. W. 318; the engine to one Russell in 1906, taking Edmonds v. Herbrandson, 2 N. D. 270, 14 a mortgage back, which was duly filed and L.R.A. 725, 50 v. W. 970; Sasser v. Martin, has been renewed, and admittedly is, and 101 Ga. 447, 29 S. E. 278; Craig v. Herz- always has been, a valid lien upon the prop
And a statutory lien on a mare for the So, a warehouseman has no lien on perservice of a stallion is not superior to a sonal property for storage, as against the prior chattel mortgage on the mare, which holder of a prior, duly filed chattel mortwas duly recorded as provided by the stat- gage which prohibits a removal of the goods ute of registration, so as to charge third from the residence of the mortgagor, withparties with personal knowledge thereof, out the consent of the mortgagee. Bauwhere the mortgagee has in no way author- mann v. Jefferson, 4 Misc. 147, 23 N. Y. ized the mortgagor to place the animal Supp. 685. under a superior lien. Mayfield v. Spiva, And under a statute giving a warehouse100 Ala. 223, 14 So. 47.
man a lien on goods deposited and stored But a statutory lien of the keeper of a with him, for his storage charges, and stallion for public use, on the offspring providing that he may retain such goods thereof, is superior to a chattel mortgage until his lien is paid, the lien of a waregiven on a mare while in foal by the stal. houseman on goods covered by a duly filed lion, and registered before the foal is chattel mortgage and stored with him by dropped. Sims v. Bradford, 12 Lea, 434. the mortgagor, without the knowledge or
The lien of a garage-keeper for storage consent of the mortgagee, and in violation of an automobile at the request of à mort- of a covenant in the mortgage to the effect gagor in possession is also subordinate, in that the mortgagor would not remove the the absence of a statutory provision to the mortgaged property from the premises contrary, to the prior chattel mortgage, where it then was without the consent in although the mortgagee had knowledge writing of the mortgagee, and that, in the
the mortgagor was keeping the ma- event of the property being so removed, chine in the public garage. Adler v. God- the sum then remaining unpaid should frey, 153 Wis. 186, 140 N. W. 1115. become due, and the mortgagee be entitled And the statutory lien of a
to the immediate possession of the propcarrier for the transportation of a portable erty,ếis subordinate to the lien of the "merry-go-round" at the request of a mort- mortgage. Allen v. Becket, supra. gagor in possession, whom the mortgagee Likewise, a statutory warehouseman's allows to move the property from place to lien on furniture covered by a duly filed place, for use, within the state, is subject chattel mortgage forbidding removal of and inferior to the lien of a prior, duly the property from the house in which it filed mortgage, of which the carrier also was when mortgaged, which furniture had had actual notice. Owen v. Burlington, been stored, without the knowledge or conC. R. & N. R. Co. 11 S. D. 153, 74 Am. St. sent of the mortgagee, by the mortgagor Rep. 786, 76 N. W. 302.
in possession after default, when the mortWhere the section of the lien law giving gagee's title and right to immediate posa warehouseman a lien on goods deposited session had become absolute, is subordinand stored with him, for his storage charges, ate to the lien of the chattel mortgage. gives no preference, and states nothing Baumann v. Post, 26 Abb. N. C. 134, 16 tending to show that the lien of a ware Daly, 385, 12 N. Y. Supp. 213. houseman is to be preferred over a prior And warehouseman with whom lien, while other sections of the law con- mortgagor, without the knowledge or astain clauses stating when the lien may or sent of the mortgagee, has stored mortmay not have priority over other liens, it gaged goods, after default, and when the may be inferred that the legislature did mortgagee's title and right to immediate not intend to give a warehouseman a pref- possession have become absolute, has no erential lien for goods stored over that of lien on the goods as against the mortgagee. a prior, duly filed chattel mortgage. Al- Eisler v. Union Transfer & Storage Co. 16 len v. Becket, 84 N. Y. Supp. 1007; Sing- Daly, 456, 12 N. Y. Supp. 732. er Mfg. Co. v. Becket, 85 N. Y. Supp. 391. And a statute providing that a
erty. On April 11, 1911, Russell wrote, which amount a blacksmith's lien was soon plaintiff for its written consent to a sale filed by Boyle Brothers against Arbogast, of the mortgaged engine, receiving a reply Russell, and the Reeves Company, by the dated April 15, 1911, in effect withholding filing of an affidavit of lien, accompanied consent until it could investigate and until with an itemized and verified statement of certain conditions were complied with. Rus- all labor and items of material and charge sell, however, took no further steps to ob- entering into the account. Written notice tain such written consent, and sold it to of this was at once given. Plaintiff thereArbogast, for valuable consideration, who upon demanded possession from Boyle bought with notice of the encumbrance. Brothers, who had at all times since the Arbogast thereafter consulted Boyle Broth- completion of the work retained possession ers, machinists, at Jamestown, as to re of the engine, and upon their refusal therepairing the engine, and one of them went of the property was taken under warrant of to Russell's place, where the machine still foreclosure. Boyle Brothers in defense remained, and inspected the same as to the pleaded their artisan’s lien and possession probable cost of overhauling, rebuilding, for the purpose of foreclosure thereof, and and putting it in suitable condition, and asked that their lien, claimed both under made an estimate that to do so would cost $ 6295, Rev. Codes 1905, Comp. Laws 1913, in the neighborhood of $800. Defendants § 6877, and chapter 168, Laws of 1907, be Boyle Brothers, were then engaged by Ar- adjudged to be a prior lien to the mortgage bogast, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the plaintiffs. With this question of of Russell, to move the engine to the ma priority of liens, plaintiff seeks to raise the chine shop of Boyle Brothers for repairs following questions: (1) Whether an artiand rebuilding the engine, which was there san's lien takes priority over a mortgage of after completed at an expense for labor, record on the property liened; and (2) material, and repairs and incidental ex- whether chapter 168 of the Session Laws penses, totaling $882.11, and incurred be- of 1907, amending § 6295, Rev. Codes 1905, tween April 27 and May 26, 1911, and for i Comp. Laws 1913, 6877, passed after this houseman's lien may be enforced “against Generally, as to the lien of an innkeeper all goods belonging to others which have on property of a third person in possession been deposited at any time by the person of a guest, see note to Horace Waters & who is liable as debtor for the claims in Co. v. Gerard, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 958. regard to which the lien is asserted, if
2. Lien of producer. such person had been so intrusted with the possession of the goods that a pledge In Sheeks-Stephens Store Co. v. Richof the same by him at the time of the de- ardson, 76 Ark. 282, 88 S. W. 983, it was posit to one who took the goods in good held that a statutory laborer's lien on faith for value would have been valid,"- cotton for the price of his labor in progives a warehouseman no lien, as against ducing it was superior to a chattel mort. the mortg gee in a prior, duly filed mort- gage on the crop of cotton to be grown. gage, on property deposited with him by The court said: “When the work of the the mortgagor. Ludwig. B. & Co. v. Roth, laborer does not produce the thing upon 67 Misc. 458, 123 N. Y. Supp. 191.
which he labors, he takes a lien, but it But under a statute giving the keeper | is subject to prior liens. But when the labof a hotel a lien upon, while in his pog. or for which a lien is claimed produces the session, and the right to detain, property thing upon which a lien is claimed, then no brought upon his premises by a guest, lien can, under the statute, be prior to that. for the proper charges due from the guest No lien upon a crop can be prior to that on account of his accommodation, etc., un- which the statute gives the laborer who less the hotel keeper knew that the property prepares the ground, plants and produces was not, when brought upon his premises, the crop, for his lien attaches as soon as legally in the possession of the guest, or the crop comes into existence, which is as had notice that the property was not then soon as any lien can attach. The lien of a the property of the guest,--a hotel keeper, mortgagee does not attach to a crop until in the absence of actual notice of the ex- it is produced, and therefore cannot be istence of a chattel mortgage in default, prior to the lien which the statute gives on property brought by a guest to the the laborer who produces it.” hotel, has a lien on the property, superior But in Betts v. Ratliff, 50 Miss. 561, it to the mortgage, although the mortgage is was held that a statutory lien on a crop duly filed so as to give statutory construc- for the wages of a laborer producing it tive notice to "creditors, purchasers, and could not be superior to a chattel mortsubsequent mortgagees;” the lien claimant gage given before the passage of the statnot being either a creditor, purchaser, or ute, as “the legislature could not create subsequent mortgagee within the meaning a statutory lien which would impair a of this statute. Matthews v. Victor Ho- prior lien expressly permitted by law." tel Co. 74 Misc. 426, 132 N. Y. Supp. 375, Generally, as to the sale or mortgage
of affirmed without opinion in 150 App. Div. future crops, see note to Dickey v. Waldo, 928, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1127.
23 L.R.A. 449.
A. C. W.