LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION'S 65 
of the fact that the share of the crops of his tenants is not marketed 
through the association, nor would there be a basis for holding the 
tenants liable under such circumstances. 
CROP MORTGAGES 
Generally speaking, a person who takes a crop mortgage or other 
lien on commodities occupies a position virtually identical with that 
of a purchaser of the commodities involved. In other words, gen- 
erally speaking, in determining the rights of the holder of a crop 
mortgage to avail himself of the products covered thereby, the rules 
that would be applicable if he had purchased the crop involved are 
applicable. In Kansas, 60 Kentucky, 61 and Tennessee, 62 it has been 
held independent of statute that the person who takes a mortgage 
on a crop with knowledge of the fact that it is covered by a market- 
ing contract may be compelled by injunction to market the crop 
through the association, which in turn after making the deductions 
authorized by the contract must account to the person holding the 
mortgage before making any payments to the member. 
In North Carolina, 63 Alabama, 64 Louisiana, 65 it has been held 
that even though the party taking the mortgage has knowledge at the 
time that the crop is covered by a marketing contractj his rights are 
superior to those of the association, and the association can not 
compel the delivery of the crop to it for marketing. It is believed 
that the holdings in the North Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana 
cases were based, to a large extent at least, on the mandatory char- 
acter of the statutes of those States denning the superiority of 
recorded liens and mortgages. 
Another factor which should be considered in all of these cases 
is the exact character of the purchase-and-sale contract of the asso- 
ciation. If the contract is a contract to sell, 66 then the rights of the 
association may be different from what would be the case if the 
contract was one of sale. 
In North Carolina, the fact that the crop is covered by a mortgage 
will not prevent the association from enjoining the member from 
disposing of his crop outside the association subject to the right of 
the holder of the mortgage to demand a sufficient amount of the crop 
to satisfy his mortgage, 67 but it is otherwise in Alabama. 68 
In Kansas, 69 it was held that where a producer signed a marketing 
contract which in effect stated that there were no encumbrances of 
any kind against his crop, he was liable for liquidated damages 
60 Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Floyd et al., and Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. 
Robben et al., 116 Kan. 522, 227 P. 336. 
61 Redford et al. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 205 Ky. 515, 266 S. W. 24 ; 
Feagain v. Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 202 Ky. 801, 261 S. W. 607. 
62 Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Dunn, 150 Tenn. 614, 266 S. W. 308 ; see also 
Oregon Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Lentz, 107 Or. 561, 212 P. 811 ; Monte Vista Potato 
Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516, 252 P. 813. 
63 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. L. Harvey & Son Co., 189 N. C. 494, 127 S. E. 545, 
47 A. L. R. 928 ; Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Patterson, 187 N. C. 252, 121 S. E. 
631. 
64 Bishop v. Alabama Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n, Ala. , 110 So. 711. 
65 Louisiana Farm Bureau Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Clark, 160 La. 294, 107 
So. 115. 
66 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. L. Harvey & Son Co., 189 N. C. 494, 127 S. E. 545, 
47 A. L. R. 928. 
67 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Patterson, 187 N. C. 252, 121 S. E. 631. 
68 Bishop v. Alabama Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n, Ala. , 110 So. 711. 
69 Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Leslie, Kan. , 271 P. 284. 
68118°— 29- 
