Opinion
No. 29692.
January 11, 1932. Suggestion of Error Overruled February 23, 1932.
CHATTEL MORTGAGES.
Trust deed covering crops grown on described premises and "elsewhere in county" covered all crops grantor grew in county and was valid.
APPEAL from chancery court of LeFlore county. HON. R.E. JACKSON, Chancellor.
Gardner, Odom Gardner, of Greenwood, and V.B. Montgomery, of Belzoni, for appellants.
The description of a crop is sufficient, if it be such that a prudent, disinterested person, aided and directed by such inquiries as the instrument itself suggests, is able to identify the property.
11 C.J. 468.
The description in the deed of trust was sufficient to cover crops grown in Humphreys county.
Wasson v. Conner, 54 Miss. 351; Russell v. Stevens, 70 Miss. 685; Wetlin v. Mount, 73 Miss. 526; Woods v. Rose, 33 So. 41; Stewart v. Clemens, 124 So. 863; 66 A.L.R. 1454; Johnson v. Grissard, 3 L.R.A. 795; Shoemaker v. Waters, 47 So. 936; Duke v. Neisler Newsim, 134 Ga. 594, 68 S.E. 327.
H.C. Mounger, of Greenwood, for appellee.
Where a growing crop or one to be planted is conveyed by a chattel mortgage, the description must designate with certainty the time of growth, or year of growth, and the land on which the crop is to be produced.
11 C.J. 468.
As a general rule however, a mere statement of the county in which the crop is to be raised is not sufficient to put third persons upon inquiry, although in some jurisdictions such a general description has been held sufficient.
11 C.J. 469.
If however the mortgagee does not designate with certainty the land on which the crops are to be raised, such designation is insufficient to charge subsequent purchasers, creditors, or mortgagee, with notice of the mortgage, though it might be sufficient to bind the mortgagor.
7 Ency. (2 Ed.) 315.
The description twenty-five bales of cotton to be raised by them on lands belonging to them, etc., in said county is not a good description.
Redfield v. Montgomery, 71 Miss. 113, 14 So. 199.
In the appellants' deeds of trust we have a general description, and we have a particular description in the appellees' deed of trust. The last should prevail.
The mortgage is void as a mortgage of the crop because of uncertainty as distinguished from indefiniteness which could be made certain by parol. It does not say all crops or crops from any particular farm, and the proof shows that the mortgagor cultivated several farms. Therefore the description is not such as could be made definite by parol, but was so uncertain as to render the mortgage void as a conveyance of the crop.
Pettis v. Sullivan, 21 So. 607.
In order to affect purchasers or others acquiring rights in crops with notice of the mortgage lien, there must be a description in the mortgage by which it can be identified as will enable third persons clearly to identify the property when aided by inquiries which the instrument itself indicates and directs. Otherwise the mortgage is void for uncertainty.
5 R.C.L. 427.
A particular description of the land upon which the crops are to be grown, is necessary.
5 R.C.L. 428, 86 A.S.R. 760.
Where there is nothing in the mortgage to enable a third person to identify it, parol evidence may well be admissible between the parties, to show the property to be the same as that mortgaged, though not admissible against a bona-fide purchaser who stands upon the notice which the record charges him with.
5 R.C.L. 429.
The rule that a mortgage is sufficient if it is such that a person aided only and directed by such inquiry as the instrument itself suggests is able to identify the property, has little application to mortgages of crops.
5 R.C.L. 428; 86 A.S.R. 760; 88 A.S.R. 683.
The appellee sued the appellants for the value of cotton on which she had a deed of trust, and which was delivered by the grower thereof to the appellants, by whom it was sold and the proceeds applied to a debt due by the grower to the appellant Citizens' Bank Trust Company, which was secured by a deed of trust on property prior in time to the appellee's deed of trust.
The question for decision is simply whether the description in the Citizens' Bank Trust Company's deed of trust covers this cotton. That deed of trust conveys certain land in Humphreys county, Mississippi, "together with the entire interest of the grantor or grantors herein, or any of them, now owned and hereafter acquired, in any and all of the crops of cotton, corn, cottonseed, hay and any and all other agricultural products grown and to be grown by said grantor or grantors, or any of them, and by any and all tenants, sharehands, laborers and other employees of said grantor or grantors, or any of them during the year 1928, on any and all of the above described premises, and elsewhere in said county and together with all the rents, issues and profits arising from or growing out of any and all of the above described property."
Because of the use of the words "and elsewhere in said county," the description of the property conveyed covers all of the crops of cotton, corn, cottonseed, etc., grown by the grantor, etc., during the year 1928 in Humphreys county, Mississippi, and is therefore free from uncertainty and is valid. Wasson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Russell v. Stevens, 70 Miss. 685, 12 So. 830.
Reversed, and cause dismissed.