In Jordan v. Lindsay, 132 Ala. 567, 31 So. 484, followed by Farrow v. Wooley, 138 Ala. 267, 36 So. 384, the above cases were overruled, and it was declared that, when one furnished the land and teams and the other the labor, "a contract of hire existed between them, and not the relation of landlord and tenant or of tenants in common in the crop.
Summary of this case from Stewart v. YoungNOS. 200914492 A144714
02-08-2012
State v. Jordan Lee Lindsay
Affirmed without opinion.
In Jordan v. Lindsay, 132 Ala. 567, 31 So. 484, followed by Farrow v. Wooley, 138 Ala. 267, 36 So. 384, the above cases were overruled, and it was declared that, when one furnished the land and teams and the other the labor, "a contract of hire existed between them, and not the relation of landlord and tenant or of tenants in common in the crop.
Summary of this case from Stewart v. YoungFull title:State v. Jordan Lee Lindsay
Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date published: Feb 8, 2012
Powell Hamilton, of Greenville, for appellee. The statutory lien of the hireling will not support trover or…
Stewart v. YoungThis ruling was followed in Adams v. State, 87 Ala. 89, 6 So. 270; Gardner v. Head, 108 Ala. 619, 18 So. 551;…