64 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE 
deducted for reserves from the proceeds derived from the sale of 
his products. The appraisal of the interest of a member of a non- 
stock association on the termination of his membership where the 
statutes provide for this procedure is equivalent to the price received 
by a stockholder in a stock association on the transfer of his stock. 
On the dissolution of an association, at common law, whether stock 
or nonstock, the money in the treasury after the payment of the 
debts of the association goes to the persons who are at that time 
stockholders or members, as the case may be. 55 Those who had 
previously contributed to the organization but were not stockholders 
or members, at the dissolution of the association would be entitled 
to nothing. This is the rule that is applicable to associations except 
as it has been modified by statute, charter, by-laws, or contract. 
Reserves of an association may be used for the payment of its 
debts, and until the debts of an association have been paid 56 the 
reserves can not be distributed among its members or stockholders. 
CONTROL OF CROPS BY LANDLORD 
Entirely independent of the conclusive presumption provision, 
may an association require that crops grown under the share- 
lease plan be marketed through it? An association could include 
a provision in its marketing contract requiring a member, if 
he leased his farm or any part thereof after signing the market- 
ing contract, to include a provision in the lease stipulating that all 
crops grown on the farm should be marketed through the associa- 
tion. In addition, a provision could be included requiring the land- 
lord to pay liquidated damages for his failure to have the share of 
the crops belonging to his tenant marketed through the association. 57 
It is clear that if a lease provides for a share tenancy, then, regardless 
of the time that it is entered into, the association would be entitled to 
receive at least the landlord's share of the crop for marketing. 58 
In the cases just cited it appeared that the tenants had the right 
to sejl the landlord's part of the cotton crop, but it was held in each 
case that this fact was immaterial, as the leases provided that the 
landlord receive a part of the crop as his rent. 
In North Carolina it was held that a landlord was not liable for 
damages to the association because of the failure of his tenant to 
market his share of the crop through the association. 59 The North 
Carolina cooperative statute does not contain the conclusive presump- 
tion provision. 
In the absence of a provision in the marketing contract requiring 
a landlord to have the share of the crops belonging to his tenants 
marketed through an association and in the absence of a conclusive 
presumption provision in the cooperative act of the State, it would 
appear that there is no basis for holding a landlord liable on account 
55 Clearwater Citrus Growers' Ass'n v. Andrews, Fla. , 87 So. 903 ; Union 
Benev. Society No. 8 v. Martin, 113 Ky. 25, 67 S. W. 38; Dade Coal Co. v. Penitentiary 
Co., 119 Ga. 824, 19 R. C L. 1267 ; Henry v. Cox. 25 Ohio App. 487, 159 N. E. 101 ; 
Missouri Bottlers' Ass'n v. Fennerty, 81 Mo. App. 525 ; 5 C. J. 1360. 
56 Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Lennox et al. (Tex. Civ. App.), 297 S. W. 743; 
Associated Fruit Co. v. Idaho-Oregon Fruit Growers' Ass'n, 44 Idaho 200, 256 P. 99. 
67 Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Daniels, 215 Ky. 67, 284 S. W. 399. 
68 Long v. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n (Tex. Civ. App.), 270 S. W. 561; Main v. 
Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n (Tex. Civ. App.), 271 S. W. 178. 
68 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Bissett, 187 N. C. 180, 121 S. E. 446. 
