Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/81

 specified realty. But the seed grain man is given a lien only upon the crop raised from the seed sold. It is entirely immaterial upon what land it may be grown. It is true that it must be upon land "owned, used, occupied, or rented" by the purchaser of the seed; in other words, the purchaser must be interested in having a crop raised from the seed. Without this limitation, the law might be made the instrument of injustice. If A. should enter into a contract with B., by the terms of which B. agreed for a stated compensation to furnish the seed and seed a certain tract of land belonging to A., and B. should purchase the seed, on credit, from C., and seed the land, and receive his compensation, it would be most unjust to permit C. to file a lien on A.'s crop to secure the debt due from B. to C. It is next urged that the court did not pass upon the lien asserted by appellants under a prior mortgage. It is true the court made no findings as to the execution of such mortgage, or as to its non-payment. No such findings were asked, nor can their absence in any manner prejudice appellants. The seed lien statute declares the lien therein provided for to be superior to the lien of any chattel mortgage on the crop, executed after the passage of the act. The answer shows appellant's mortgage to have been executed after the passage of that act. Had the court specifically found that appellant's mortgage was executed as alleged in the answer, and that it was entirely unpaid, yet under the findings respecting the seed lien, the conclusion of the court that plaintiff's seed lien was superior to the lien of appellants' mortgage would have been inevitable. There is no error there of which appellants can complain. It is alleged in the answer, and plaintiff's testimony shows, that at the time he sold the seed grain he took a note from the purchaser for the amount, secured by a chattel mortgage on all the crops grown upon the land where this crop was grown during that year and the succeeding year. The mortgage contained the following: "It is hereby agreed that James K. Joslyn, by taking this mortgage and note, waives no right to a seed lien for the amount thereof." The court made no finding as to such mortgage, apparently on the theory that it was entirely immaterial, or not in issue. Appellants insist, however, that it is material, and that a party