The husband did not give any lien upon the crop and had no right to do so. Rawlings v. Neal, 122 N.C. 173; Bray v. Carter, 115 N.C. 16. The plaintiffs have no right to follow the fund which was the purpose of this action.
No inconvenience can result from such a ruling, as it is quite easy for a party making advances to require that she be joined as a party to the mortgage." See, also, Rawlings v. Neal, 122 N.C. 175; Evans v. Cullen, 122 N.C. 55; Bray v. Carter, 115 N.C. 16. Bazemore v. Mountain, 121 N.C. 60, differs essentially from this case.
Action dismissed. Cited: Long v. Ins. Co., post, 469; Mullen v. Canal Co., 115 N.C. 16; Lemly v. Ellis, 143 N.C. 208, 212. (11)
Petition denied. Cited: Tucker v. Tucker, post, 334; Moore v. Beaman, 112 N.C. 561; Mullen v. Canal Co., 115 N.C. 16; Weisel v. Cobb, 122 N.C. 70; Hodgin v. Bank, 125 N.C. 503, 511. (251)
It applies to a mortgagor in possession. ( McAllister v. Lawlor, 32 Mo. App. 91; Aultman Taylor Co. v. O'Dowd, 73 Minn. 58 [72 Am. St. Rep. 603, 75 N.W. 756]; Bray v. Carter, 115 N.C. 16 [ 20 S.E. 164].) It applies to a vendee in possession.