Willis v. Moore

Texas Supreme Court
59 Tex. 628, 2 Tex. L. R. 171, 1883 Tex. LEXIS 240 (1883)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In Texas, a mortgage is a mere lien that leaves title and right of possession in the mortgagor; therefore, a mortgagor may sever crops in law (by sale) or in fact (by harvesting) prior to foreclosure, preventing them from passing to the purchaser of the land.

Facts:

Lewis Moore executed a deed of trust (mortgage) on his land to secure notes payable to Reed & Smith.
This deed of trust was duly recorded.
Moore and A.J. Gill cultivated crops on the land under a partnership agreement where they shared proceeds.
On August 1, 1881, Gill purchased Moore's interest in the standing, ungathered crops.
At the time of the crop purchase, the notes secured by the mortgage were due and unpaid.
On September 8, 1881, a substituted trustee sold the land under the deed of trust to satisfy the debt.
The appellant purchased the land at this foreclosure sale and claimed the ungathered crops.
Gill claimed the crops based on his purchase from Moore prior to the foreclosure.

Procedural Posture:

Gill (appellee) and the land purchaser (appellant) litigated the ownership of the crops in the trial court.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Gill (implied by the affirmation).
The land purchaser (appellant) appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a purchaser of mortgaged land at a foreclosure sale acquire title to ungathered crops standing on the land, if the mortgagor sold those crops to a third party prior to the foreclosure?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stayton

No, the purchaser of the land does not acquire the crops because they were effectively severed from the realty before the foreclosure sale. The court reasoned that unlike the common law rule in England—where a mortgagee holds legal title and the mortgagor is a mere tenant at sufferance—Texas law treats a mortgage as a security for a debt (a lien) rather than a transfer of title. Consequently, the mortgagor remains the owner of the land with full right of possession and the ability to control the fruits and revenues of the property until actual foreclosure. The court held that crops are distinct from the land and can be severed 'in law' by a valid sale. Since Moore sold the crops to Gill before the land was sold at foreclosure, the crops became personal property (chattels) and did not pass to the appellant with the land deed.

Analysis:

This case is a seminal decision establishing the 'Lien Theory' of mortgages in Texas, expressly rejecting the English 'Title Theory.' By ruling that a mortgage does not convey title, the court protects the rights of mortgagors and agricultural tenants to the fruits of their labor up until the moment of title divestiture. The decision creates a clear legal distinction between the land and 'fructus industriales' (crops produced by labor), allowing the latter to be treated as personalty that can be sold separately from the realty. This encourages agricultural productivity by reducing the risk that a farmer or their assignee will lose their investment in a crop due to a sudden foreclosure on the underlying land.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Willis v. Moore (1883)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"