The feme plaintiff sold and conveyed the land mentioned to the defendant, taking his promissory notes, coming due at different times, for the purchase money, and at once took from him a mortgage of the land and the crops to be produced thereon from year to year, for the time specified to secure the payment of the notes as they severally came due. The mortgagee, as such, was entitled to the land, and in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to all the crops that might be produced upon it from year to year, until the debts secured by the mortgage should be discharged. The defendant mortgagor remained in possession of the land, not as of right, but by permission of the mortgagee, and the crops produced, including that in question, belonged to the latter for the purposes of the mortgage, although produced by the labor of the former. Jones v. Hill, 64 N. C., 198; Williams v. Bennett, 4 Ired., 122.
The clause of the deed of mortgage expressly conveying the crops to be produced on the lands from year to year was unnecessary, because, without it they belonged to the mort*263gagee. It did not in any degree abridge her rights. As the crops were hers she could agree with the mortgagor to apply them from time to time as provided in the mortgage.
It is unneceessary to advert here to the nature and extent of the right of the defendant to have compensation for cultivating the crops.
So that the objections urged and relied upon in opposition to the plaintiffs’ right to recover, are not applicable to this case, and we need not consider them.