'ARK.] LESSER-GOLDMAN COTTON CO; V. MILLER. 1099 LESSER-:GOLDMAN COTTON Co4RAT■Tx. 't):; Opinion • delivered'DeceMber 21, 1925' • LANDLORD AND. TENANT-NOTICE OF LANDLORD'S ,buyer of cotton, on which a landlord's _lien exists canna ésea.PO liability ' theiefôr 'unless : he has .neted : in goOd faith . : in Making, ; Such purchase, and: good faith . requires :a reasonable investigation; of.any information which he has that is calculated to warn. Jinn that a. laallord's lien .thereon, exists: , • Appeal . from . Fultim 'Chancery . -Court ;, Reeder, Chantelloi. affirmed.' ' ! • ;' • ' -11 'HumiAries & Goodwi'n ."and Bur . le, for 'appet-lant.. ! • ! .• • '• .• • • C . Elmore,' for apPellee. • H!. ! • Huminintvs, J. 'This suit' waS' instituted 'in the . chdt-'eery Court bf FUltori , County bY .againSt. Opel--1aAt to' enforde- a JamillOrd's' lien for 4 rent 'on, 21' bales- bf 'eotton raised . on Mrs. 'Laura Murrell's farm in '1922 by her -tenant, Mrs.' Allene Williamson. • • ! 7 ! • Appellant; -sw,ho purchased the . Cotton 'froth Williaia-. sOn Brothers,' a partnerShip coinposed r of 'John S. Wil- • liamson and Ed Williainson; interposed the defense!that hought-the cotton in 'good faith, not knoWing l -thht .it had' been 'raised . on. the' Tann 'of Mrs.'' Laura' Mnttell.;' o'r that' she had a landlord'S'lien thereon tor' rent: ; The eanse was , submitted- to the 'coult • npon the pleadings . 'and testiniony 'addiiced , 13y the Tespeetive parties, which : resulted in :a• finding-4 the iSsues of factlarid
1100 LE SSER-G OLDMA N COTTON CO. V. MILLER . [169 law in favor of appellee, and a decree ; against appellant for the amount sued for, from which an appeal has been duly prosecuted to:this court. .,.„ . App O la nt contends for a ;reversal of the judgment uPon the ground that the finding of . -t e chancellor was contrary to the clear preponderance of tile evidence under the law applicable to the: case -. , The, rule announced in the case of Van Etten v. Lesser-Gol , dman Cotton Company, 1' 8 Ark. 432, applicable boa, case of this kind is as follows : "One who purchase's cotton upon which a landlord's lien exists cannot escape liability therefor except when he has acted in good faith in making such purchase; and good faith requires'a reasonable investigation' of any information• which he has that is calculated to warn him that he is being offered cotton upon which there exists a landlOrd' s iieii." .The undisputed, facts in the case fix . liability upon appellarit, under the rule quothd above. These facts are as' follows : Appellant has maintained an Office 'in Helena 'for 23 years, wider the management of Joseph L. Solomon for the purpose of buying cotton in Phillips.and surrounding counties. It had bought, large . amounts of cottgn yearly for five or six years from Williamson Brothers, who were in business at Holly Grove ;about forty-five , miles from Helena.. Williamson Brothers owned a:large plantation in Monroe County near Holly Grove, and raised most of the cotton which they sold to appellant. The senior member . of the firm, John S. Williamson, was the husband of Alone Williamson, who rented the farm of Mrs. Laura Murrell for the years 1920, 1921; and 1922. Joseph L. Solomon was vice president of the Security Bank & Trust Company, and his brother; David L: Solomon, was assistant cashier of said bank. Williamson Brothers did all their business with that 'hank.. They shipped practically all their cotton from time to . time during the, season to appellant, and, when it was sold, deposited the proceeds, after paying any drafts which.appellant had drawn upon it, to Williamson Brothers' credit.. The individual cot-
/ ARK,.1 LESSER-GOLDMAN COTTON CO. V. MILLER. 110.1 e i 1 ton of Williamson Brothers, when shipped to appellant, ) \\las marked in their name. : The • cotton shipped through Williamson: Brothers'•which had been .prodneed on the .Murrell farm , was parked with the Jetter ` . `1\1'' in addition tO the ' nape of,. WilliamSon Brothers. Dnring the •years. 1920. and 1921 after the :cotton •raised• on the Mur-rell place : was 'shippécr. to 'appellant,. Williamson Brothers i. dreW 'draftS•• On . aPpellaii(in- faVer , ' of . 'Mrs.: . Murrell for her rent, - Whieh draft g 'iVere • Paid Iv, . i:t Mrs Milirell 's Jease,..for , 1922 provided ., for , A .. r ,e'ntal ' Of $850 to - be paid On or alvu€,NOveinber ;15th 'Of, that . year,... - TWentY-one bales of cotton.were shipped :to appellant. in.• small lots between October1st and December, 115th..• It was.marked .Withthe :letter "M:" in addition to . barrying : tho:nanie of WilllaniSon BrOthets. . 'On peceinber '1, • : 1922, '-William-'SOn-BriitheiS : dreW a , drft," . as : :tiOal, : uPoir . aPpellant in favor Of 'MrS. : MUrrell: for the . rent.. At . the : ' aine.. time , they , drew. a, draft,on. appellant -for .$150 to pay for . gin- . ning the Murrell cotton. Appellant paid the draft for ginning -but ,refu sea:to pay. Mrs. ' Murrell's draft felt' her rent;. • hecause - they had theretofore • applied the preeeeds a th-e • cOtton. '4i . ,the':foaYniefit of:,:WilliaPson''prOthers' ) .i'id-pwae4 t . 3 . .:.§-40 Ijois,•1 :;: ' ,.. • ) According to the undispnted facts stated -above, t. _appellant haddnforination that a .part of the cotton .it t • -: o , 'ot ,f.roin: Williamson Brothers .in. 1920' , and' '1921 . was c . raised:on the • Mnrrell farin;' and that Nji$. Mntrell had a ,landlerd'S 'lien ;thereon -fO'r , the, : rent: . , It. paid:the , :rent drafts for the'se -twe yearS to . Mrs.' Murrell , .npon the ( cotton which Williamson Brothers shipped to, it .under it the park "M". Cotton marked in the sante way was shiPped to it by Williani g on Brother's in '1922, :and this ? information was 'siifficient 'to put it upon: inquiry, ;Had i % aPpellants made inqiiiry,' it 'would'-have aseeitained that ' the 21 bales fof cotton marked "Mi" were raised' on Mrs. Murrell7s larm,•and.that under her lease she was .entitled to a landlord's lien thereon for $850. ; Good faith required that. it makg an investigation. ,.,-, . ,., . . ,, .I\I'g error appearing, , the decree, is affirmed, .
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.