Beck v. Minnesota & Western Grain Co.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1906
• Parties: JOHN BECK, Appellee, v. THE MINNESOTA & WESTERN GRAIN CO., Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

107 N.W. 1032

131 Iowa 62

JOHN BECK, Appellee, v. THE MINNESOTA & WESTERN GRAIN CO., Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 12, 1906

Appeal from Lyon District Court.-- HON. WM. HUTCHINSON, Judge.

THE defendant purchased oats from a sub-tenant of plaintiff, and this action is to recover for their conversion. From judgment as prayed, defendant appeals.-- Affirmed.

Affirmed.

James V. McHugh and Simon Fisher, for appellant.

C. J Miller, for appellee.

OPINION

LADD, J.

The plaintiff leased to N. A. Walquirst, in writing, 160 acres of land for the term of one year, beginning March 1, 1903, at the agreed rental of $ 525, to be paid October 1st, of that year. Thereafter Walquirst sublet the premises to one Kresten, who raised 974 bushels of oats thereon, and sold them to the defendant for $ 265.85; this being the market price. Walquirst failed to pay the rent, and in this action recovery of the value of the oats is sought by the landlord. The appellant contends: (1) That as plaintiff did not prove title to the land in himself, the court erred in holding that he had a landlord's lien on the crop; (2) that in any event, no demand for the property or its value was proven and (3) that the lien had expired before the action was begun.

I. The land had no buildings or other improvements thereon. No evidence tending to prove plaintiff's title, save a contract of purchase from one Converse was introduced, nor was it made to appear who was in the actual or construction possession prior to the execution of the lease. In these circumstances, a demise to a tenant at common law might not have been valid. Taylor's Landlord & Tenant, section 84 et seq. The reason for the rule was that as a chose in action could not be assigned the lease of land in the possession of another was void. But under the statutes of this state, authorizing the assignment of choses in action and the sale of an interest in land, though in the adverse possession of another, possession is not essential to the validity of a lease. Section 2916, Code; Foster v. Young, 35 Iowa 27, 40. The relation of landlord and tenant is created by contract, either expressed or implied, by the terms of which one person designated "tenant" enters into possession of the land under another known as "landlord." 1 Taylor on Landlords & Tenants, section 14. The landlord may not have any interest in the title to the demised premises, but whether he has or not cannot be questioned by the tenant before the expiration of his lease, and whilst in possession under it, unless based upon some distinct and independent claim to the land. Bowdish v. City of Dubuque, 38 Iowa 341. Possibly a want of consideration might be pleaded in such a case to defeat the claim for rent, but under the law of this state a consideration is implied from the fact that the lease was in writing. Nor is it essential that the tenant should have been in possession in order to sublet. The lessee, having an interesse termini, may make a good lease, without entering into possession. Section 85 of Taylor on Landlord & Tenant. The rule by which the tenant is estopped from denying his landlord's title is also applicable against all persons entering into possession through or under the tenant, and therefore one to whom the tenant leases the premises is as fully estopped from questioning the landlord's title to the land, as the tenant himself. Bonds v. Smith, 106 N.C. 553 (11 S.E. 322); Merchants' Bank v. Clavin, 60 Mo. 559; Ellsworth v. Hale, 33 Ark. 633; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 417. See, also, Hardin v. Jones, 86 Ill. 313; Bertram v. Cook, 44 Mich. 396 (6 N.W. 868); Stewart v. Roderick, 4 Watts & Serg. 188 (39 Am. Dec. 71).

As between the plaintiff and Walquirst, the relation of landlord and tenant existed, and with reference to the rent, section 2992 of the Code provides that "A landlord shall have a lien for his rent upon all crops grown upon the leased premises, and upon any other personal property of the tenant, which has been used or kept thereon during the term, and not exempt from execution for the period of one year after a year's rent, or the rent of a shorter period falls due. But such lien shall not in any case continue more than six months after the expiration of the term." The oats were grown "on the demised premises," and plaintiff had a lien thereon for the payment of his rent. Houghton v. Bauer, 70 Iowa 314, 30 N.W. 577; Evans v. Collins, 94 Iowa 432, 62 N.W. 810; Church v. Bloom, 111 Iowa 319; Richardson v. Peterson, 58 Iowa 724, 13 N.W. 63. When, if at all, was this lien terminated? The defendant purchased the oats from the subtenant. It acquired the title which the seller then had. That title was subject to the plaintiff's lien. The defendant acquired nothing more, and in appropriating the property became liable to the plaintiff for the value of the incumbrance.

II. It is argued that as defendant merely acquired the title Kresten had (Nickelson v. Negley, 71 Iowa 546, 32 N.W 487), a demand was essential as a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action for conversion. Conceding without deciding this, we think a proper demand was made. One McDowell testified that prior to the commencement of the suit in 1905 he demanded the value of the oats raised upon the leased premises of defendant's agent, who responded that he had no authority to pay therefor. Upon cross-examination McDowell testified: Q. "You met Mr. Kruger (the agent) and took a little walk with him, did you? A. Walked to the office with him, yes. Q. Didn't you say 'there is a little bill, and I presume you don't want to pay it do you?' Isn't...