560 SUPREME COURT -OF ARKANSAS, [39 Ark. Walters v. Meyer & Co. WALTERS V. MEYER & CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT : Whether vendor and re.ndee Or landlord and tenant. A and B executed a written agreement by which A sold to B a tract of land for $10,000, payable in five annual installments of $2,000 each; the first, due the first day of January, 1879; B stipulating to pay $1.000 rent for 1878, and if the installment due the first day of January, 1879, was paid, then the rent for 1879 should be $800; ami to continue at the same rates until all the installments should be paid; "or, in other words, for every one hundred dollars paid on the pur-chase-price, the rent to be reduced $10;" and the residue remaining unpaid at the end of f ive • years, to bear interest at ten per cent, per annum; and when all was paid. A was to make title to B for the land. In an action by attachment on the crop for the rent of 1880, Held: That the contract was a bond for title, and not a lease. The parties were vendor and purchaser, and not landlord and tenant, and the stipulation for rent was manifestly an agreement for interest.
39 Ark.] • NOVEMBER TERM,1882._ _ 561 Walters v. Meyer & Co. APPEAL from Jefferson Circuit Court. Hon. X. J. PINDALL, Circuit Judge. Bell & Elliott, for appellant: The true construction of the agreement is that it was a contract of lease for five years, with privilege to Hecker et al., of purchasing in the meantime on the terms stated. They conld have made the payments and forced a deed, but Walters could not have enforced the payment of the $10,000 by . snit if they saw proper, as they did, to treat it as a lease. ,If Walters can not recover the rent, he is without remedy. There was no undertaking to pay for the land; it was optional with them whether they paid the purchase-money . and made it a sale or not, or declined and claimed the stipulations as a lease. Meyer knew that the rent was to be 'paid before' he took the mortgage, and he is estopped, etc. Martin & Trimble, for Meyer. 1. The contract was clearly a bond for title ; see the words "sold" and "price." It concludes in the usual language of a bond for title, obligating the vendor, on payment of the purchase-money, to make a deed. It does not say when the purchase-money and rent are paid. The money to be paid as rent was merely interest on the purchase-money. 2. The relation of landlord and tenant and vendor and vendee are so antagonistic that they can not exist at the same time between the same parties concerning . the same subject-- matter. STATEMENT. ENGLISH, C. J. Singleton P. Walters brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in January; 39 Ark.-36
562 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [39 Ark. Walters v. Meyer & Co. 1881, by attachment, under the landlord's lien act, against William K. locker, William Murdough, and Virginius Murdough. The complaint alleged, in substance, that defendants were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars for the rent of the plantation known as the John, son , place, on Wataseka Bayou, in Jefferson County, composed of the following lands [here the lands are described], containing 760 acres, which p]aintiff owned as landlord, and leased to defendants for the year 1880, and which sum wa4 due on the thirty-first of December, 1880, and no part of ,it had been paid. Plaintiff filed an affidavit that defendants were indebted to him in the sum of $1,000, for rent of the lands described in the complaint, for the year 1880, which was due the thirty-first of December, of that year, and no part of it had been paid; and that plaintiff claimed a lien on the erops raised on said lands for the 5-ear 1880, to secure said rent; and that defendants had removed a portion of the crops on said lands, during said year, without the consent of plaintiff, etc. Plaintiff also executed a bond, and a writ of attachment was issued, and levied by the Sheriff on cotton produced on the lands in question during the year 1880, which was claimed by Gabe Meyer & Co., who bonded it arid inter-ple a . ded for it, setting up title to it under a supply mortgage executed to them ( by the defendants in the suit. . The defendants made no defense, and upon the interplea of Gabe Meyer & Co., the cause was submitted to the court by consent of parties. Plaintiff read in evidence the following instrument: "This agreement witnesseth that S. P. -Walters of Rich-mond, Madison County, Kentucky, party of the first part; and Samuel C. Motes, W: H. and V. Miirdough, and W. K:
39 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1882. • 563 Walters v. Meyer & Co. Rocker, all of Jefferson County, State of Arkansas, parties of the second part, have this Oay entered into thd following -contract: S. P. Walters has sold to the parties of the second part, the farm known as the Johnson place, nOw occupied by W. K. Rocker, situated on Wataseka Bayou, in Jefferson County, Arkansas, containing seven hundred and sixty (760) acres more or less, as follows" [here the same lands described in the complaint are described], for the price of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), in five (5) equal annual payments of two thousand dollars ($2,000) each, as fellows: Two thousand dollars $2,000) the first day of . January, 1879 ; two thousand dollars ($2,000) the first day of January, 1880; two thousand dollars, ($2,000) the first day of January, 1881; two thousand dollars ($2,000) the first day of January, 1882; two thousand dollar ($2,000) the first day of January, 1883. It is further agreed by the Parties of the second part, that they will pay the .Said Walters one thousand dollars ($1,000) rent for the said farm, for the year 1878; and if the first payment of two thousand dollars ($2,000) due the first day of January, 1879, is paid, then the rent for the year 1879 is to be eight hundred dollars ($800); and to continue at the same rate& until the five payments are made; or, in other words, for every one hmidred dollars ($100). paid on the purchase price, the rent is to be reduced ten dollars ($10), and whatever amomit remains unpaid at the end of five years, as. agreed, is to bear interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum until paid, from the first day of January, 1883. The parties of the second part agree to pay the taxes on: said lands, commencing with and including the year 1878; and the said Walters on his part binds himself, his heirs,-, etc., to make the parties of the second part when the last purchase-money is paid a general warranty deed, to be made as directed by the parties of the second part. Given
564 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [39 Ark. Walters v. Meyer & Co. under our hands and seals this twenty-second day of April, • 1878. This agreement - is substituted in lieu of one given October 29, 1877, which , agreement is signed by John J. Motes, who - has since died, and the names . of W. H. -and V. Murdough are substituted by agreement of the parties. • "S. P. WALTERS, [SEAL.] "WILLIAM K. HOOKER, [SEAL.] "S. C. MOTES, [SEAL.] "W. H. MURDOUGII; [SEAL.] "V. MITRDOUGII, [SEAL.] "Attest: "S. W. MARTIN, "IRWIN SHIPLETT. "I have transferred .my entire interest in the above contract to AV. 1-1.. and V. Murdough for value received, this tbe tWenty-second day of April, 1878. "S. C. MOTES." Plaintiff then introduced as a witness, William K. }locker, one of the defendants . , who testified, in substance, that the contract was_ made with plaintiff by . defendants, as set out the writing, and that defendants took possession of the lands, and cultivated the place, ai4paid the $1,000 for 1878 and 1879.. That the $2,000 mentioned in the contract was not paid in January, 1879, nor January, 1880, nor has any of it ever been paid. That for 1879, the interpleaders furnished the money to pay the rent, as they were furnishing supplies for that year. - That at the beginning .of the year, 1880, before the mortgage was executed to the interpleaders, witness told G-abe Meyer that the rent of $1,000 had to be paid, and spoke to him freqnently about it. That the rent was due for 1880. $1,000, and IMd not been paid, and that Gabe Meyer knew -it. That part of the cotton had been removed off of the place without the consent of plaintiff ; and that the cotton
39 Ark.] - NOVEMBER TERM, 1882. 565 Walters v. Meyer & Co. attached in , this suit was raised on the place in 1880. There was about five hundred acres cleared land on the pl ace. Plaintiff also introduced defendant, William H. Mur-dough, who testified substantially the same as witness Rocker ; and further, that interpleader, Gabe Meyer, had a mortgage on the crop for 1,879, • and furnished supplies, and witness applied to him when the rent of $1,000 was • due for 1879, and he furnished the money and the rent was paid, and witness told . him that it was for the rent of the place. That defendants had made some improvements, and cleared up some land to cultivate, which improvements I'vere worth $2,000. This was all the evidence of the •pl ain tiff. The interpleaders introduced the mortgage relied on by them, and attached to their interplea. It was, executed to them the seventeeth of . April, 1880, by the defendants, upon some personal property, and the crops of cotton and- corn to be planted and cultivated by them on the lands in question during the year 1880, to secure the sum of $5,000 to be advanced in money and nierchandise by the interpleaders to defendants ; the debt to be paid, with interest, by the first of November, 1880, with power of sale .on default, etc. The mortgage was acknowledged a • nd recorded. Gabe Meyer, interpleader,. 'testified that he furnished supplies on the place for the years 1879 and 1880; that the mortgage introduced was given for supplies for 1880. That at the beginning of the suit there was a large amount due him, more than 'the cotton attached would . . pay. That Murdough did get $1,000 from him to pay plaintiff rent of the crop of 1879, but he • did not know whether it was to pay rent or to pay purchase-money. It was money that had to be paid on the land. He did not recollect-ever seeing
566 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [39 Ark. Walters v. Meyer & Co. the written contract in this case, nor did he recollect Rocker telling him the rent had to be paid. The above was all the evidence. The interpleaders asked several declarations of law, but the court, on the objection of plaintiff, refused all of them but one, which follows: "The instrument between . Walters and Rocker and others, is a bond for title, and the effect of it is the same as if a deed had been made by Walters to them, and a mortgage taken back for the pnrchase-money." The conrt, of its ,own motion, declared the law to be as follows: "The contract between plaintiff and defendants is a sale and purchase of the land, and the money mentioned as set out for interest, and not for the use and occnpation of the land, and does not give plaintiff a landlord's lien on the crops." To which plaintiff excepted. And thereupon the court fonnd the facts as follows : Plaintiff's claim is fonnded upon the contract read in eVidence, and interpleaders' Claim is founded upon their mortgage . read in evidence. If the contract between plaintiff and defendants creates the relation of landlord _and tenant, then plaintiff must recover; if not, then the inter-. pleaders." And the court, upon the whole case, found for the inter-pleaders, and rendered judgment that they retain the cotton attached. The court also rendered judgment in favor • of plaintiff against, defendants for $1,000 . debt, and $30.82 damages_ etc. As against the interpleaders, plaintiff moved for a new trial, which the court overruled,- and he took a bill of excep, tions and appealed.
39 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1882. 567 Waiters v. Meyer & Co. OPINION. The statute provides that: "Every landlord shall . have a lien upon the crop grown upon the demised preMises in anv year for rent that shall accrue for such year, and such lien shall continue for six months, after such rent shall become due and payable." Gantt's Digest, sec. 4098, etc. The statute also gives any landlord who has a lien on the crop for rent, a remedy by atachment, when tile tenant is about to remove the crop from the premises without paying rent, or has removed it, or any portion thereof; without the consent of the landlord. lb ., secs. 4101, 4104. It wa under this statute that appellant brought this suit, and caused the cotton in question to be attached, for whiCh appellees interpleaded. The court below decided, in effect, that the contract read in evidence by appellant was a bond for title, and not a lease, and created the relation of vendor and purchaser between appellant and the defendants in the attachment suit, and not the relation of landlord and tenants, within the meaning• of the statute. The court properly construed the contract. The money provided by . 4 to be paid as rent, was manifestly interest upon the purchase-money. No doubt a vendor may, by contract, reserve a lien upon land and crops, its fruits, to secure the payment of purchase-money, and interest. • In this case appellant reserved the legal title as security, and provided for payment of rent as interest, but lie contracted for no lien on the crops to. secnre purchase-money or interest. Or rent -as interest, and his case is not within the landlord's lien statnte. 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.