First National Bank of Moorhead v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Company
| Decision Date | 10 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 25,980 |
| Citation | 214 N.W. 288,171 Minn. 461 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MOORHEAD v. ST. ANTHONY & DAKOTA ELEVATOR COMPANY AND ANOTHER; L. J. BOWMAN, INTERVENER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The defendant and the intervener appealed from an order of the district court for Clay county, Roeser, J., denying their motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Cropper's lease construed.
1. The form of contract between a landowner and a cropper in common use in this state makes them co-owners of the crops until they are divided. The cropper may mortgage his interest before the crops are divided. A provision authorizing the landowner to retain possession of the cropper's share as security for his indebtedness is in legal effect a chattel mortgage.
Lien of landowner on crops to be grown.
2. Except as security for rent or the purchase price of the land, the landowner cannot acquire a valid lien on crops to be grown later than the season beginning on May 1 next following the date of the contract.
What constitutes the contract after modification of separable part.
3. A modification of a subordinate and separable part of a contract does not effect a cancelation or avoidance of the whole contract. When, by consent of the parties, a contract is thus modified, it consists thereafter of the new terms and the old ones which remain unchanged.
Inadvertent computation of court is not ground for reversal.
4. The inadvertent failure of the court to include a small item in computing the amount due to the prevailing party is not ground for a reversal. Application should be made to the trial court for the correction of the error.
Landlord must account to tenant when he retains more than his share of crop.
5. If without the consent of the cropper, the landowner retains more than his share of the crops, he must account therefor and cannot apply the value thereof on the unsecured indebtedness of the cropper.
Appeal and Error, 3 C.J. p. 881 n. 25.
Contracts 13 C.J. p. 595 n. 61, 62; p. 596 n. 63.
Landlord and Tenant, 36 C.J. p. 699 n. 37; p. 705 n. 18; p. 709 n. 13, 18 New; p. 712 n. 81.
Libby & Harris and C. G. Dosland, for appellants.
Edgar E. Sharp, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for the conversion of a quantity of wheat. The court found in plaintiff's favor, denied a motion for a new trial, and the defendant and the intervener have joined in an appeal.
In December, 1922, intervener entered into a contract with one Leiseth for the operation of intervener's farm from March 1, 1923, to March 1, 1926. In form the contract was not materially different from the one involved in Clark v. Cargill Elev. Co. 158 Minn. 429, 197 N.W. 845, and in the cases cited there. It provided that the intervener should have and retain possession of all produce of the farm until final settlement with Leiseth and that he might hold enough of the produce to repay any of Leiseth's indebtedness to him. Leiseth operated the farm during the seasons of 1923 and 1924. By mutual consent, the parties terminated the contract in the spring of 1925. In October, 1924, Leiseth gave the plaintiff a chattel mortgage on his share of the wheat then in storage in defendant's elevator at Borup. The chattel mortgage was duly filed. The contract between the intervener and Leiseth was never filed, but plaintiff had actual knowledge of its existence and contents. The defendant sold the wheat and turned the money over to the intervener. This is the act charged as a conversion. The intervener filed a complaint in intervention claiming a paramount lien on the wheat for more than the amount for which it was sold.
Among other things, the court found that at the close of the farming season of 1923 the accounts between Leiseth and the intervener were fully settled and adjusted except for a balance of $5.47 due from Leiseth, which was carried over for adjustment in the following year; that in the spring of 1924 the contract was modified by providing that Leiseth should furnish the seed wheat and should receive two-thirds of the crop instead of one-half as originally provided in the contract; that plaintiff's mortgage was given to secure a debt of $2,500 owing by Leiseth; that the defendant had notice of plaintiff's mortgage before it sold the wheat; that the lien of the intervener on the wheat was limited to the expense of hauling the 1924 crop to the elevator, which should have been borne by Leiseth, the balance due from Leiseth on the settlement of 1923, and unpaid rent for 1924. Deducting the first and last items from the amount for which the wheat sold, the court struck a balance and directed the entry of judgment therefor in plaintiff's favor.
It was shown that Leiseth was indebted to intervener on a note of $500 which fell due November 10, 1924. The evidence shows that the note was surrendered to Leiseth in December, 1924, when he made a settlement of some sort with the intervener. It has not been paid unless the intervener may retain the money he received from defendant on the sale of the wheat. Damages for Leiseth's alleged failure to plow as much of the land as the contract required and for injuries to the improvements on the farm were claimed by the intervener but disallowed.
This court has repeatedly held that an ordinary contract for the cultivation of a farm on shares makes the landowner and the cropper co-owners of the crops until there has been a division thereof; that the cropper, before a division is had, may mortgage his interest in the crop subject to the landowner's rights as fixed by the terms of the contract; and that the usual provision in such contracts authorizing the landowner to retain possession of the cropper's share as security for...
To continue reading
Request your trial