Colville v. Miles

• Citation: 127 N.Y. 159,27 N.E. 809
• Parties: COLVILLE v. MILES.
• Decision Date: 02 June 1891
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

127 N.Y. 159

27 N.E. 809

COLVILLE

v.MILES.

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division.

June 2, 1891.

Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court of the second judicial department, affirming a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury. This action (replevin) was begun October 18, 1886, to recover a quantity of hay, oats, and straw grown in that year by a tenant on a farm owned by the plaintiff, which, in April, 1884, was leased, with stock, in which the landlord and tenant were jointly interested, for an annual rent of $960, payable in monthly installments of $80 each. The tenant, Patrick Kane, occupied the farm until the 1st of October, 1886, when he left indebted to the plaintiff for $100 rent, and to various persons. On the 5th, 6th, and 14th of that month the defendant, a constable, seized a part of the hay, oats, and straw grown on the farm, by virtue of six warrants of attachment issued by a justice of the peace. The property was taken by the sheriff under the process issued in this action, and was subsequently delivered to the plaintiff. From April, 1880, to April, 1884, Kane worked the farm on shares, he having one-third and the plaintiff two-thirds of its products; but in April, 1884, the farm, the stock owned by the landlord, as well as that in which both were interested, was let as abovestated. On the trial the value of the property was assessed at $1,000, and the title was found to be in the plaintiff.

M. M. Kane, for appellant.

John Vincent, for respondent.

FOLLETT, C. J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

Frequently the title to the products of lands leased for agricultural purposes is reserved by the lessor, or a lien is created as security for the payment of rent; but no such claim is put forward in this case. It is not asserted that the landlord and tenant owned the products jointly, and title was in the one or the other in severalty. This action was brought and maintained on the theory that the plaintiff held the legal title to the property in question. The only witness who gave evidence in support of the action was the plaintiff, who testified: ‘As near as I can recollect, he (Kane) was to take charge of the stock. He was to raise enough stuff on the place to feed the stock; and, if there was not enough to carry them through the year, he was to buy what was necessary to carry it out, which he has not been doing for the last two years. The stuff was not to be sold. There was forty odd head of cattle. You do not raise stuff to sell when you have cattle. * * * The hay and grain were not to be removed, it was not raised to sell; it belonged to the cattle. Question. Did you have any interest in the farm after you made the lease to Mr. Kane, or the products of it, in any way? Answer, No; I gave that up with the lease of the cows. I leased the cows, and leased everything. I gave him all that the ground produced. I never received any of the products for the sale of young stock or produce sold from said farm. I never gave any direction about working the farm, or made any inquiry of Kane as to what he was using on the farm, or what he sold off the farm. I did not care so long as he raised the milk. I told him he could use anything he wanted except the stock. I was entitled to two-thirds of the stock when it was sold. He sold it all, and pocketed it; and I never got my two-thirds. * * * He put on seven cows. He kept sheep on the farm. I do not know what he did with them. * * * When the farm was leased the hay and grain was not mentioned at all. He was to raise enough stuff on the farm to keep the cattle. If there was not enough raised on the place he was to buy what was requisite. What was raised on the place was to be fed to the cattle. * * * There was no conversation particularly in which anything was said about feeding the cattle from the products raised on the farm. He was to raise the stuff, and support the cattle. If the place did not support the cattle he was to buy whatever was necessary. That was the agreement. I cannot state what he said. I am stating what I said. I said it, and he agreed to it.’ This is all the testimony given in behalf of the plaintiff, which tends to show that he reserved the title to the products of the farm. The tenant and a witness who heard the bargain testified that it was not agreed that the crops were to be fed on the place, and that no reservation was made in respect to them. The court instructed the jury, in effect, that if the plaintiff's evidence was true the title to the property was in him, and that he was entitled to recover, to which the defendant excepted. The court was also asked to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish title, which was refused, and an exception taken. In this, we think, the court erred. If the plaintiff had the title to this property it might have been taken in execution for his debts, or he could have sold it to a purchaser in good faith and for value, to the exclusion of the tenant and all claiming under him. Such consequences do not flow from the contract testified to by the plaintiff. He did not testify that title to the hay and grain was reserved by him, but that the tenant agreed to feed enough of it on the farm to support the stock. This did not amount to a reservation of title, but was an executory contract, for a violation of which the landlord could have recovered damages. The question involved in this case has been several times considered by the supreme...