Anderson v. Strauss
Anderson v. Strauss
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
As between the parties to the judgments, the seizure and sale upon the executions, of the wheat, did, no doubt, constitute a severance of the crop from the realty; but not as against the grantee in the deed of trust. He was not a party to the proceedings, and his rights were not affected thereby. The purchaser at the sheriff's sale took subject to the rights of the grantee under the trust deed, which were not cut off or affected by such sale. Had the grantor in the trust deed severed the crops, in fact, as did the purchaser under the. executions, such severance would not have given him title to the grain as against the holder of the deed of trust. The purchaser at the sheriff's sale acquired only the rights of the maker of the deed of trust. The clause in the deed of trust permitting the grantor to enjoy the rents, profits and issues until default, was merely declaratory. Such was the legal effect of the deed, independent of the clause. As soon as'default occurred, that permission ended.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Henry L. Anderson v. Benjamin Strauss
- Cited By
- 12 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Deed of trust—right of grantor to enjoy rents, issues and profits. A clause in a deed of trust permitting the grantor to enjoy the rents, profits and issues of the land until default, is merely declaratory, such being the legal effect of the deed, independent of the clause. Upon default the permission ends. 2. Same—sale of crops on execution does not affect grantee’s rights. As between the parties to a judgment, the seizure and sale of growing wheat upon execution issued upon the judgment, will constitute a severance of the crop from the realty; but as to a grantee in a deed of trust given by the execution debtor before the execution became a lien, such seizure and sale will not work a severance. .The purchaser at the sheriff’s sale takes subject to the rights of the grantee under the trust deed, which will not be cut off or affected by such sale. 3. A and wife, in January, 1878, executed a deed of trust on certain land to B, to secure a debt due to 0, evidenced by a note payable two years after its date, with interest. In March, 1879, B, the trustee, sold the land to 0 for a default in the payment of interest, and G shortly after leased the premises to A. In April, 1878, D recovered a judgment against A, upon which an execution issued, and was, in December, 1878, levied on a crop of growing wheat sown by A in the fall of 1878, on the premises, and the wheat was by the sheriff sold to D, who in 1879 took possession of the same, and cut and shocked it: 22eld, in an action of replevin by C, that the wheat belonged to him, affirming a judgment in his favor.