(a) In General.

Form No. 12740.

(Precedent in Ehrman v. Oats, 101 Ala. 604.)

[(Title of court and cause as in Form No. 5907.)]1

The plaintiff claims of the defendant one hundred dollars damages, for that plaintiff is the holder and owner by transfer of a rent note made by Abner Williams, on the 24th day of January, 1891, for the payment of one hundred dollars, to F. L. Ashley, for rent for the year 1891 of thirty-five acres of land lying in the county of Montgomery, Alabama, about four miles west of the city of Montgomery, being part of said F. L. Ashley's farm, which said rent note was due on the 15th of October, 1891. Plaintiff avers that said Williams raised three bales of cotton during the year 1891 on said rented premises, besides other produce, and turned over said three bales of cotton or its proceeds to said defendant, without paying said rent, and without consent of plaintiff, and said defendant received said cotton or its proceeds with notice that the same was subject to a lien 2 for said rent; that said rent is unpaid and due, [and said defendant has disposed of said three bales of cotton or its proceeds, by reason of which wrongful conduct of defendant the plaintiff has lost his lien,]3 wherefore plaintiff sues. [(Concluding with signature as in Form No. 5907.)]1

(b) On Promise to Pay Rent.

Form No. 12741.4

(Title of court and cause as in Form No. 5907.)

Plaintiff claims of defendant the sum of two thousand dollars, for that on the twentieth day of November, 1872, Elias F. Harrell was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars for the rent during the year 1872, of certain lands belonging to the plaintiff, by said Harrell rented from him; and whereas a crop of cotton of the value of two thousand dollars was raised by Harrell on said land

being a mere conclusion of law. Until it appeared that defendant did not have cotton or its proceeds, the lien was not lost and therefore an action on the case would not lie. The change which has been made in the form meets the objection of the court.

4. This form is in substance the complaint in Boggs v. Price, 64 Ala. 514. It was there held that as a purchaser from a tenant of crops grown on rented premises, who with notice of the lien of a landlord removes and converts them so that the lien and the statutory remedy to enforce it are rendered unavailing, is liable to the landlord on a special action on the case, *** such liability is a sufficient consideration to support his promise to pay the landlord the rent due him from the tenant."

during the year 1872, upon which plaintiff had a statutory lien as landlord for the rent; and whereas the defendant, well knowing the matters aforesaid and that said rent had not been paid, possessed himself of said cotton and sold and disposed of the same for the sum of, to wit, two thousand dollars, and afterwards, to wit, on the seventh day of January, 1873, said rent still remaining unpaid, the said defendant, in consideration of the matters aforesaid and of his liability to plaintiff on account thereof, undertook and promised to pay plaintiff said sum of one thousand dollars; and plaintiff says that defendant has never paid said rent or any part thereof to his damage in the sum of two thousand dollars, for which he brings this suit. (Concluding with signature as in Form No. 5907.)

b. Answer Denying Knowledge of Lien.1

Form No. 12742.

(Precedent in Graham v. Seignious, 53 S. Car. 134.)

[The State of South Carolina, Court of Common Pleas.

County of Charleston.

Benjamin Graham, plaintiff,

against

James M. Seignious, defendant.

The defendant for answer to the plaintiff's amended complaint herein says:]3

1. Defendant denies that he at any time, or in any way, converted fourteen bales of cotton, or the proceeds thereof, as alleged in the first paragraph of the amended complaint. As to the remaining allegations of said first paragraph, defendant denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief.

2. Defendant denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegation of the second paragraph of the amended complaint.

3. Defendant denies the allegations of the third and fourth paragraphs of the amended complaint.

4. Further answering, defendant alleges that W. M. Arant shipped to this defendant in the year 1894, fourteen bales of cotton, but this defendant has no knowledge or information, sufficient to form a belief, as to whether said cotton was grown on lands under lease from plaintiff, or that plaintiff had or has any lien or claim upon said cotton. Defendant alleges that on 19th January, 1894, he entered into an agreement in writing with the said W. M. Arant and M. A. Arant to make advances in money or supplies to an amount not exceeding $900 during the said year, to be used by said W. M. Arant and M. A. Arant in the cultivation of plantations known as " Belleville" tract, containing 412 acres, near Fort Motte, and also the Bow

1. Requisites of Answer, etc. For the formal parts of an answer or plea in a particular jurisdiction see the titles ANSWERS IN CODE PLEADING, vol. I, p. 799; PLEAS.

2. The complaint in this case is set out supra, Form No. 12739.

3. The matter enclosed by [ ] will not be found in the reported case.

man place, containing 574 acres, near Rowesville, both in Orangeburg County. Pursuant to said agreement this defendant did, subsequent to the execution thereof and during said year 1894, make advances to the said W. M. Arant and M. A. Arant, in consideration of the lien on the crop made during said year, secured to him by said agreement, which said agreement was duly indexed and recorded in the proper office in Orangeburg County. And this defendant alleges that the said fourteen bales of cotton were shipped to him pursuant to said agreement and subject to the lien thereof, and the said cotton was sold and the proceeds applied to the discharge of the debt of the said lienors to this defendant, pursuant to agreement, leaving said lienors still indebted to this defendant, after exhausting all securities covered by said lien, in the sum of $381.72, no part of which has been paid to this defendant. Defendant alleges that at no time has he been aware that plaintiff had, or claimed to have, a landlord's lien upon said cotton, or claim upon or interest in the same, and the first intimation he received of such a claim from any source before the service of the summons herein, was about a year after the sale and delivery of the cotton by this defendant, and the application of the proceeds in the manner herein alleged.

[Wherefore the said defendant demands that the said complaint be dismissed with costs.

(Verification.)]1

Oliver Ellsworth, Attorney for Defendant.

3. Replevin2 by Tenant's Purchaser Against Sheriff Claiming Under Landlord's Lien.

a. Petition.3

Form No. 12743.4

(Precedent in Scully v. Porter, 3 Kan. App. 494.)

[(Venue and title of court and cause as in Form No. 5917.)]1

1. That said defendant is, and has been for more than one year last past, the duly qualified and acting sheriff of Butler county, Kansas.

2. That this plaintiff is the owner of and entitled to the immediate possession of the following-described personal property, namely: 2,500 bushels of corn in the ear, in two cribs that adjoin each other, upon a farm in Towanda township in said county, occupied by J. N. Bledsoe, which said corn is worth the sum of 11 cents per bushel, and the total value of said corn being $275.

3. Said defendant unlawfully took said corn from the possession of this plaintiff on the 3d day of February, 1890, and has ever since

1. The matter supplied and to be supplied within [ ] will not be found in the reported case.

2. See also, generally, the title REPLEVIN AND CLAIM AND DELIVERY. 3. Requisites of Complaint, etc. For

the formal parts of a complaint, declaration or petition in a particular jurisdiction see the titles COMPLAINTS, vol. 4, p. 1019; Declarations, vol. 6, p. 244.

4. No objection was taken to the form of this petition.

then and still does unlawfully detain said corn from the possession of this plaintiff. Although demanded, he still refuses to give up possession of the same.

4. Said defendant has damaged this plaintiff in the sum of $100 by the said unlawful detention of said corn in this, that he thereby prevented this plaintiff from having the same to feed to his cattle, he being a dealer in cattle, and having said corn for the purpose of feeding to his cattle; and has been further damaged by having teams employed to haul said corn from where it is located to the feed lots of this plaintiff, near the town of Towanda in said county, a distance of about five miles.

[Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the said defendant for the possession of the said corn so unlawfully detained as aforesaid, and also for judgment against the said defendant for the sum of one hundred dollars, his damages for said unlawful detention as aforesaid, together with the costs of this suit.

(Concluding with signature and verification as in Form No. 5917.)]1

b. Replication Denying Knowledge of Lien.'

Form No. 12744.3

(Precedent in Scully v. Porter, 3 Kan. App. 496.)

[(Venue and title of court and cause as in Form No. 5917.)]1 Now comes said plaintiff, and, for his reply to the second cause of defense set up in the amended answer of defendants, says that he denies each and every allegation therein contained. For a further reply to said second cause of defense, this plaintiff says that he had no notice of any ownership or claim of ownership on the part of Scully to the land described in said answer, and he had no notice and did not know that said Scully claimed any interest in or to the crops growing on said land, or to the corn involved in this suit; he did not know that Bledsoe was a tenant of Scully's, and that he purchased said corn in good faith, and paid a valuable consideration therefor. [(Concluding with signature and verification as in Form No. 5917.)]1

1. The matter supplied and to be supplied within [] will not be found in the reported case.

2. Requisites of Reply, etc. For the formal parts of a replication or reply in a particular jurisdiction see titles REPLICATIONS; REPLIES.

3. The answer to which this reply was made is set out as follows in Scully v. Porter, 3 Kan. App. 493:

'Now comes the defendant, William Scully, and for answer to the petition filed herein says:

That he denies each and every allegation in said petition contained, except that Charles Schram now is, and for more than one year last past has been, the duly qualified and acting sheriff of Butler county, Kansas.

And further answering, said defendant alleges that he now is, and for several years last past has been, the owner and in possession of the followingdescribed farming lands, situated in the county of Butler and state of Kansas, to wit: The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 32, and the southwest quarter of section 33, all in township 26 south, range 4 east of the sixth principal meridian; that on the 27th day of October, 1886, said defendant leased said premises to J. N. Bledsoe for a term of five years, beginning on the 1st day of March, 1887, which said lease is hereto attached marked Exhibit A, and is hereby made a part hereof; that by the terms of said lease there was due and owing from said

4. Indictment for Removing Property Subject to Lien.1