Though recognizing the rule that the landlord had a lien on crops raised on the rented premises by an assignee or sub-tenant of the lessee, the ruling in this case was based on the holding that the burden of proof was on the landlord to show a lien in accordance with the statute to secure advances made to the lessee. The cases of Edwards v. Anderson, 36 Texas Civ. App. 611[ 36 Tex. Civ. App. 611]; Trout v. McQueen, 62 S.W. 928; Marrs v. Lumpkins, 22 Texas Civ. App. 448[ 22 Tex. Civ. App. 448]; Horton v. Lee, 180 S.W. 1169; are held to present no conflict with this decision. (Pp. 140, 141).
This statute determines the existence of a landlord's lien, and at the expiration of the time therein named the lien ceases to exist, in the absence of foreclosure proceedings. Jenkins v. Patton (Tex.Civ.App.) 21 S.W. 693; Horton v. Lee (Tex.Civ.App.) 180 S.W. 1169. The evidence is insufficient to disclose that Graham Mill Elevator Company operated a public or bonded warehouse controlled or regulated by the laws of this state.
Vernon's Sayles' Civil Statute 1914: Marrs v. Lumpkin. 22 Tex. Civ. App. 206. 54 S.W. 777: Horton v. Lee (Tex.Civ.App.) 180 S.W. 1169; Edwards v. Anderson. 36 Tex. Civ. App. 611 . 82 S.W. 659: Trout v. McQueen (Tex.Civ.App.) 62 S.W. 928. In 24 Cyc. p. 1260, the following rule is stated:
The court evidently meant by his finding that Kahn acted in his capacity as adjuster for the dry goods company when he sold the cotton, and that that company was bound by his act; otherwise he could not have concluded as he did that the dry goods company was liable as for a conversion of the property. As we construe the facts and testimony specified they not only did not warrant the finding, but established conclusively that if Kahn sold the cotton he sold it as the agent of Turner, and not as the agent of the dry goods company Turner, the landlord, was in possession of the property as a lienor (Forrest v. Durnell, 86 Tex. 647, 26 S.W. 481; Edwards v. Anderson [Tex. Civ. App.] 82 S.W. 659; Trout v. McQueen [Tex. Civ. App.] 62 S.W. 928; Horton v. Lee [Tex. Civ. App.] 180 S.W. 1169), with authority from G. T. King, his tenant, to sell it. Having such possession and authority, Turner was the only person who had a right to sell or to authorize any one else to sell the cotton.
It seems to be the law that if he was either such an assignee or subtenant, appellee had a lien on the crop grown by him on the land, unless she waived it, and there was no testimony whatever that she did waive it. Forrest v. Durnell, 86 Tex. 647, 26 S.W. 481; Edwards v. Anderson, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 611, 82 S.W. 659; Trout v. McQueen (Tex.Civ.App.) 62 S.W. 928; Horton v. Lee (Tex.Civ.App.) 180 S.W. 1169. We think the other question also should be answered in the affirmative.