Russell v. Stevens
Russell v. Stevens
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the couft.
The deed of trust was not a nullity, and was properly admitted in evidence. It is sufficiently definite in description of the property, and the evidence shows that the grantor had such relation to certain land on which he raised crops in Clay county in the year 1891 (being on them and cultivating either as owner or by consent of the owner), as to authorize a mortgage of the crops, which, in these circumstances, had such potential existence as to make them a legitimate subject of sale or mortgage by the common law. Possession of land, and preparation for making a crop on it, make the crop to be grown as much a subject for sale or mortgage as the next cast of a fisherman’s net or the wool to grow on the sheep of the party.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Joe Russell v. J. L. Stevens, Trustee
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Trust-deed. Crops. Description. General terms. Ambiguity. A trust-deed conveying “the entire crops of corn, cotton and other agricultural products to he raised and gathered by the grantor, his family or employes under him, during the year 1891, on any lands cultivated or controlled by the grantor in Clay county, Mississippi,” is sufficiently definite in the description of the property. 2. Mortgage. Validity. Crops to be grown. Potential existence. Crops to be grown by the grantor, or his employes, during the year, on land of which he is in possession, either as owner or by the consent of the owner, preparatory to making a crop, have such a potential existence as to be a valid subject of mortgage.