Bussard v. Binder

• Decision Date: 20 January 1977
• Citation: 558 P.2d 845,277 Or. 21
• Parties: James E. BUSSARD and William Lyche, Respondents, v. Kenneth BINDER, Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 845

558 P.2d 845

277 Or. 21

James E. BUSSARD and William Lyche, Respondents, v. Kenneth BINDER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 1.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 1976.

Decided Jan. 20, 1977.

David C. Glenn, of Rodriguez, Neilson & Glenn, Madras, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.

Neil R. Bryant, Bend, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were James V. Hurley and Gray, Fancher, Holmes & Hurley, Bend.

Before DENECKE, C.J., and HOLMAN, TONGUE and SLOPER, JJ.

DENECKE, Chief Justice.

In this action plaintiffs recovered damages because of the defendant's alleged breach of an implied promise in a sharecrop lease to harvest wheat in a husbandlike manner. The trial court sitting without a jury awarded plaintiffs judgment of $4,223.40 and defendant appeals.

The parties entered into a verbal lease of plaintiffs' land whereby defendant was to pay as rent one-third of the wheat crop to be raised by defendant. Defendant contends that under this arrangement he did not have an implied duty to exercise good husbandry in cultivating and harvesting the crop.

We have not decided previously the question raised by this contention. We have, however, decided in a situation that appears to us to be analogous that there is an implied promise to proceed in a diligent manner. In Fremont Lbr. Co. v. Starrell Pet. Co., 228 Or. 180, 364 P.2d 773 (1961), the defendant leased plaintiff's land to develop the oil, gas and minerals on the land. The principal consideration for the lease was to be the royalties from minerals taken from the land. We held there was an implied promise by the lessee to 'proceed with reasonable diligence to obtain production.' 228 Or. at 199, 364 P.2d at 782. Accord, Yeadon v. Graham, 273 Or. 234, 236, 540 P.2d 1007 (1975).

The courts of other jurisdictions have held or stated in dicta that when there is a sharecrop lease, the tenant impliedly promises to farm in a husbandlike manner. Shultz v. Ramey, 64 N.M. 366, 328 P.2d 937, 940 (1958); Cammack v. Rogers, 32 Tex.Civ.App. 125, 74 S.W. 945, 948 (1903); Brown v. Owen, 94 Ind. 31, 35 (1883).

Almost 100 years ago in Patton v. Garrett, 37 Ark. 605, 610 (1881), the Arkansas court decided to the contrary. It reasoned that to hold there was an implied promise 'would give rise to interminable litigation.' 37 Ark. at 610. Under some circumstances this can be a valid judicial consideration; however, we do not find it so in the present circumstances. We...