ARK.] KINNEY- V. SMART. 1057 KINNEY V. SMART. ' ' • 4-4609 Opinion delivered April 26, 1937. 1. : •LANDLORD AND TENANT. -Appellant; who rented from appellee 230 acres of land: agreeing to pay therefoi as rent 17,500 pounds of lint cotton, was, under the Bankhead Cotton Control Act of , April , 21,. 1934, a "standing rent tenant," and was , entitled to receiVe all 'the tax exemption certificates from the' Government. 2. LANDLORD AND TENANT.—Altholigh ` appellant was, ' under the • 'BankheaT Cotton COntrol Act of April 21; 1934, a "standing yent , tenant" , and entitled to receive, from the Government the cotton tax exeniptiOn ' certificates, which were ,receiVed and, used bY aPpellee; the rental _contract 'Providing "that all cotton was ' to be ginned 'and warehonSed in' the nanie of appellOO ' and 'the . warehouse receipts turned over' to appellee at the time of warehoUsing until the rental was paid in .full" implied that had appellant received the certificates, he : would have had: to use them just. as they were used by appellee; otherwise, the rent cotton could not haVe ' 'been ginned and Warehonsed: free frOni 'the tax ' ' • ; -;!: : ", ; ' ; . Appeal froin Crittenden Chancery. Court ;,i/.!.F.; ney, ,Chancellor ; .affirmed. , Appellant, pro - s'e. • • J ohn E. SurepsfOn, , for. appellee.
1058 KINNEY V. SMART. [193 ; HUMPHREYS, J. On January 16, - 1934, appellant rented 230 acres of land in Crittenden county from appel-lee for the year, 1934, to cultivate in cotton. Appellant cultivated the land in 1933 and after the crops were gathered he began to plow the land for the next year and had plowed most of it before all the terms of the rent contract had been agreed upon. The day before the written rental . contract was executed appellee signed a rent reduction contract to the United States Government for a part of said land . in connection with and in furtherance of the production control movement. The written rent contract between appellant and appellee contained the following provision: "It is mutually agreed that the amount of the land that will be planted in. cotton will necessarily have to be reduced, proportionate to Government requirements and contracts already signed, * * *." The written rental Contract between appellee and appellant also provided that the rent should be paid out of the first cotton, the amount being fixed at 17,500 lbs., or 35 bales of 500 lbs.'average ; that all the cotton was to be ginned and warehoused in the name of appellee an,d the warehouse receipts turned over to appellee at the time of warehousing until the rental was paid in full; that after the payment of the rent, all cotton should be turned bver to appellee until the furnishing account was . paid, and that all Government money should go . to appellant. On April 21, 1934, the COngress passed the Bank-head act providing for a tax on all cotton raised from 'the, 1934, crop and ginned therefrom in excess of ten million bales. In enforcing the act, the Government adopted a plan of issuing coupons to-be used by the ginners in certifying as tax free such number of pounds of cotton as the contract entered into between the producer and the Government showed to have been the average production of the land covered by the particular contract over the base r■eriod of five years, from 1928 to 1932, each inclusive. The plan was to issue the tax exemption certificates to the producers in accordance with their several interests in the tax exempt cotton which saved the producers from
'ARR.] KINNEY V. SMART. 1059 paying a process tax thereon. Under the , plan the total amount of tax exemption Certificates apportioned to the land rented by appellee to appellant . was .21,225 poUnds. Appellee applied for and procured these tax exemption certificates and used 17,500 pounds in certifying as tax free the 35 bales of rent cotton, and a part of them in certifying as tax free so much of the cotton as was necessary to pay for what appellee had furnished appellant, and turned the balance of them over to appellant's attorney. . The whole crop produced on the land was 38,116 pounds and the total issue of exemption certificates on said land was 21,225 pounds. The number of pounds used by appellee in certifying as tax free his rent cotton was 17,500 pounds, or 7,755 pounds more than appellant claims appellee was entitled to as landlord under the provisions of the Bankhead act.and the instructions and regulations issued and promulgated by the Government pertaining thereto. This claim is based on the theory that under said act and' regulations appellant was a managing share tenant." He brought suit on that theory for the amount claimed and the trial court, .upon a hearing, dismissed his complaint and from the decree I I of dismissal he has appealed to this court. . . • - The main question to be determined, therefore, on this appeal is whether under the rental contract between appellee and appellant, appellant is a "managing share tenant" under the provisions of the' Bankhead act and the instructions and regulations pertaining thereto. Under said act and the instructions and regulations per: taining thereto, a "managing share tenant" is defined as follows : "Any person, commonly known as a share tenant, engaged in the production of 'cotton who pays rent for the land he farms by (1) a share of the cotton produced on such land or. (2) a share of 'the proceeds of the cotton produced on such land. A share tenant usually furnishes the labor, animals, equipment incident to the production and harvesting of cotton and uAually pays as rent one-third. of the grain crop and one-foUrth of the cotton crop,
1060 KINNEY..y. ,SMART. [193 or. one-third of .both the grain crop and one-fourth . nf the proceeds of the . cotton orOp," and a. "standing rent ten,- ant' i ' is defined as follows:. ",The term . 'standing rent tenant' shall:mean any person who- 'rents Iand , as a• tenant and *pays as, rent .a fixed quantity . of products." . • The rent contract betiveen appellant and -appellee prOvides that app'ellee shall receive 35 bales of average weigbt of 500 pounds totaling 17,500 pounds- of lint cotton. The contract provides for a fixed amount of 'cotton for rent , to be ginned and delivered to thd'warehOnse in appellee's name. There was no sharing between them of a proportionate part of the crops raised, such aS one-fourth of the cottOn, one-third of the corn, etc. . . Under the definitions of a ‘.‘managing share tenant" and 'a: "Standing rent tenant" se , t out above appellant was a ' standing rent tenant" and , that a "Managing share t' enant:" ' . . ''• ' • . Appellant:being a "standing rent fenanf," wa's en-tled to applY for and receWe.all the.tax exerOtiOn Cer-tifiaates from the Government, 'but without' objection On his j-iart appellee . applied for and _received all Pie tax exeMption cerfifiCates.. There is nothing in the record to indicate that apf•ellee perpetrated a fraud or intended to perpetrate a fraud on appellant or the Governinent in making the application for , or reCeiving 'said certificates. After receiving them he used as many of theni as was necessary to have his 35 baleS ginned' as . tax free'Cotton, and as many as were necessary . to have cotton coining fo him for supplies, ete., ginned as : tax free' dottOn i and delivered the balance' of the certificates to 'appellant's attorney. The rent contract between appellant and ap'-- ,pellee, neceSsarily implieS that •had appellant received all these certificates himself he wOuld have been 'compelled to use them for the same purposes appellee uSed thein. Otherwise* appellant could not have had the- 35 'bales ginned and delivered in the warehouse as taX exempt cotton to appellee. Appellee was entitled under his contract to have his 35 bales of cotton in payment of sup, plies, etc., furnished :by him . delivered :to hith without
ARK.] 1061 being coMpelled tb pay the rirocess , taic •hereon: Since the duty tested.en appellant to pay, the process tax, or in lieu thereof to deliver the exemption tax certificates to the girmer,- he was not damaged by the delivery ,of the certificates to the ginner by appellee. :Under his:contract he got the.benefit of the tax exemption certificates and cannot recover the value of them from appellee. The court was, therefore, correct in dismissing his' complaint; so 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.