Distinction between tenant and cropper.

- Fundamental distinction between the relationships of landlord and cropper and landlord and tenant is that the status of cropper is that of a laborer who has agreed to work for and under the landlord for a certain proportion of the crop as wages, but who does not thereby acquire any dominion or control over the premises upon which such labor is to be performed, the cropper having the right merely to enter and remain thereupon for the purpose of performing the cropper's engagement. A tenant does not occupy the status of a laborer, but under such a contract acquires possession, dominion, and control over the premises for the term covered by the agreement, usually paying therefor a fixed amount either in money or specifics, and in making the crop performs the labor for the tenant and not for the landlord. Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923); Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).

Distinction between cropper and contractor.

- If the agreement is not that one shall perform services personally, but shall procure and furnish labor, one is not a servant but a contractor. Barron v. Collins, 49 Ga. 580 (1873); Duncan v. Anderson, 56 Ga. 398 (1876); Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19, 52 S.E. 79 (1905).

Items furnished by landlord.

- When the owner was to furnish the land, stock, tools, and supplies to make a crop, and the other person was to do the work and receive a part of the crop so made, the legal relation which existed between them was that of landlord and cropper. Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897); Hancock v. Boggus, 111 Ga. 884, 36 S.E. 970 (1900); Williams v. Mitchem, 151 Ga. 227, 106 S.E. 284 (1921); Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).

Interpretation of contract.

- Legal relation of the parties is to be determined not by the statement that the land was "rented," or that the owner was to receive a part of the crop "as rent," but by the entire contract. Kiker v. Jones, 20 Ga. App. 704, 93 S.E. 253 (1917).

No partnership created.

- If one furnishes land or material and another does the labor necessary to produce the thing to be sold, and the latter receives a part of the profits as compensation for one's services, no partnership is created. Cherry v. Strong, 96 Ga. 183, 22 S.E. 707 (1895); Thornton v. McDonald, 108 Ga. 3, 33 S.E. 680 (1899); Thornton v. George, 108 Ga. 9, 33 S.E. 633 (1899); Jordan v. Jones, 110 Ga. 47, 35 S.E. 151 (1900); Padgett v. Ford, 117 Ga. 508, 43 S.E. 1002 (1903); Smart v. Hill, 29 Ga. App. 400, 116 S.E. 66 (1923).

Violation of duty as contract and tort.

- Contract of landlord and cropper, when performance of it has been entered upon, creates a status between the parties from which reciprocal rights and duties spring; a tort, as well as a breach of contract, may arise from the violation of one of these duties. Tapley v. Youmans, 95 Ga. App. 161, 97 S.E.2d 365 (1957).

Landlord has no lien for supplies.

- When the relationship of landlord and cropper exists under this statute, there is no lien on the crop in favor of the landlord for supplies furnished to the cropper, for the landlord has title. Fields v. Argo, 103 Ga. 387, 30 S.E. 29 (1898) (see O.C.G.A. § 44-7-100).

Laborer's lien.

- When title to the subject matter of the trover action was in the landlord, the remedy of the cropper was to assert a laborer's lien on the crops. Wells v. Aldridge, 75 Ga. App. 702, 44 S.E.2d 183 (1947).

Cropper's damages for landlord's wrongful refusal to perform.

- If the landlord wrongfully refuses to perform the landlord's part of the contract, the cropper may sue immediately for the cropper's special injuries, if any, including the value of services rendered, or the cropper may wait until the expiration of the harvest season and sue for the full value of the cropper's share of the crop or what the cropper's share would reasonably have been under a faithful performance of the contract by both parties. Surrency v. O'Quinn, 45 Ga. App. 455, 165 S.E. 171 (1932).

Eviction of cropper not available remedy.

- Proceeding to evict one in possession of lands cannot be maintained unless the relation of landlord and tenant exists between the parties; if the relation of landlord and cropper exists, the cropper cannot be dispossessed under a summary warrant. Tapley v. Youmans, 95 Ga. App. 161, 97 S.E.2d 365 (1957).

Cropper's right of action against third party.

- Cropper had such an interest in crops, even though not all had matured and the cropper's contract had not been fully completed by the cropper, as would support an action against one who wrongfully destroyed the crops, which right of action was joint and several with that of the landlord who likewise had an interest in the crops. Thombley v. Hightower, 52 Ga. App. 716, 184 S.E. 331 (1936).

Cited in Borders v. Herrington, 45 Ga. App. 449, 165 S.E. 148 (1932); George v. Cox, 46 Ga. App. 125, 166 S.E. 868 (1932); Herndon v. Sheats, 176 Ga. 199, 167 S.E. 506 (1933); Overstreet v. Dees, 52 Ga. App. 689, 184 S.E. 368 (1936); Flynt v. Barrett, 73 Ga. App. 396, 36 S.E.2d 868 (1946); Bexley v. State, 85 Ga. App. 888, 70 S.E.2d 602 (1952).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 49 Am. Jur. 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 549.

C.J.S.

- 51C C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 1 et seq. 52A C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 1500 et seq.

ALR.

- Recovery for failure of cropper or one leasing land on shares for failure to plant or cultivate crop, 39 A.L.R. 1357.

Right to crops sown or grown by one wrongfully in possession of land, 57 A.L.R. 584.