Goodrum v. Farmers Gin Co., 211 N.C. 737 (1937)

April 28, 1937 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

211 N.C. 737

M. H. GOODRUM v. FARMERS GIN COMPANY, ANCHOR MILLS, INC., CHARLES BARNETT, and MOORESVILLE FLOUR MILLS.

(Filed 28 April, 1937.)

Appeal by defendants from Gowper, Special Judge, at November Term, 1936, of Mecklenbubg.

No error.

Action to recover the value of certain crops acquired by defendants from H. A. Smith, which said crops were alleged to have been covered by plaintiff’s registered chattel mortgages and crop liens.

Plaintiff alleged, and offered evidence tending to show, that H. A. Smith, then engaged in the cultivation of crops, in order to secure a debt, executed to him liens on all the crops by him raised on described lands, and that these liens were renewed from year to year by the execution of additional chattel mortgages and crop liens on succeeding crops, including the years 1933, 1934, and 1935; that while the debts were unpaid and the mortgages of record in the county, Smith sold and delivered certain crops of cotton and cotton seed, raised on the lands, to the defendants in 1933 and 1934 without the consent or previous knowledge of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff asked that he recover the value of the crops so delivered to the defendants by the lienor.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defendants moved for judgment of nonsuit. This motion was denied and defendants offered no evidence.

Issues were submitted to the jury and answered as follows:

“1. Did the 1935 mortgage cancel and release the lien of the 1934 mortgage ? Ans.: No.’

“2. Did II. A. Smith, sell bis 1933 crops witb tbe consent of tbe plaintiff? Ans.: No.’

“3. Did H. A. Smith sell bis 1934 crops witb tbe consent of tbe plaintiff? Ans.: No.’

“4. How much, if any, are tbe defendants indebted to tbe plaintiff? Ans.: ‘$254.52.’”

From judgment on tbe verdict defendants appealed.

B. F. Wellons for plaintiff, appellee.

II. G. J ones and Broclc Barldey for defendants, appellants.

Pee CtjbiaM.

Tbe only question presented by tbe appeal is tbe correctness of tbe ruling of tbe court below in denying tbe motion for judgment of nonsuit. There were no exceptions to tbe evidence or to tbe judge’s charge to tbe jury.

Tbe defendants contended that tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff showed that bis course of dealing witb tbe mortgagor witb respect to tbe crops covered by bis mortgage was such as to indicate that be bad consented to tbe sale of tbe crops by tbe mortgagor, and that tbe execution of a new mortgage each year released tbe mortgage on tbe crops of tbe preceding year, and ratified tbe sales to defendants. But tbe plaintiff testified: “I never gave Mr. Smith permission to sell any part of mortgaged crops. Never agreed to release either mortgage. Had a definite understanding and agreement witb Mr. Smith that each additional mortgage would be additional security witb right to toll all crops previously disposed of unless 1935 note paid in full at maturity. Had no knowledge of either defendant purchasing crops, except Smith told me be bad sold them to C. B. Barnett.”

This evidence was sufficient to take tbe case to tbe jury on tbe issues raised. Liability for tbe recovery was apportioned among tbe defendants in accord witb an agreement between them.

In tbe trial, we find

No error.