The plaintiff, as the owner of the land, claimed possession of the tobacco in controversy. The interpleader claimed the tobacco by virtue of the purchase of the land, and that as there was no reservation of the crop in'the deed, his title to the tobacco was paramount. The plaintiff insisted that the crop had been severed prior to *77the time the interpleader had acquired title. However, the evidence discloses that the land was sold by virtue of a foreclosure proceeding in July, 1927. Consequently, the plaintiff was divested of title, and there is no evidence that the crop had either matured or been severed at that time. "While, of course, the interpleader did not receive a deed until November, 1927, after the crop had been severed, the evidence disclosed that Wellons, the intermediary purchaser, was acting for the inter-pleader.
The only parties before the Court are the plaintiff, former owner of the land, and the interpleader, the subsequent purchaser thereof. As the action was instituted in 1927, the ease of Collins v. Bass, 198 N. C., 99, 150 S. E., 706, is in point and determinative. See, also, Bank v. Page, 205 N. C., 248, 171 S. E., 68.
Affirmed.