Friedman v. Weeks
| Decision Date | 11 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 33796. |
| Citation | 181 N.W. 390,190 Iowa 1083 |
| Parties | N. FRIEDMAN, Appellee, v. HENRY WEEKS et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Davis District Court.--D. M. ANDERSON, Judge.
ACTION to recover from defendants rent for certain land. Defendants filed a counterclaim, and to this, plaintiff filed certain claims as an offset to the defendants' counterclaim. Trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 480. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
A. W Enoch and T. A. Goodson, for appellants.
J. J Smith and Buell McCash, for appellees.
1. The controversy is over the rent for the pasture land for the year 1917,--that is, March 1, 1917, to March 1, 1918. Plaintiff alleges that he leased to defendants, under a written contract, 410 acres of land for the term of one year, commencing March 1, 1916, and that defendants entered into the possession of certain land, under said lease, and occupied the same during said term, and that, after the expiration of the lease, they continued to hold over for another year, and until March 1, 1918, that, during the first year, they used 120 acres of the farm as pasture, for which the agreed rental was $ 4.00 per acre, and that, during the second year, they used a larger acreage, the fair and reasonable value of which was $ 4.00 per acre. Plaintiff's claim is for rent due from defendants for the land used as pasture the second year. The rent for the land other than pasture was a share of the crops, and we do not understand that there is any controversy between the parties as to that. The only controversy as to the rent seems to be in regard to the number of acres of the total land rented which was used as pasture land, and for which plaintiff claims $ 4.00 an acre cash rent. Defendants, answering, admitted the execution of the written lease, and that they occupied the land thereunder, the first year; alleged that they occupied said land during the second year under a verbal lease, by which they were to pay $ 4.00 per acre for 120 acres of the land, which was pasture land, and for the balance, a share of the crops. They admit that they occupied 120 acres, and that they were to pay $ 4.00 an acre, or a total of $ 480 for rent. This was the amount of the verdict and judgment against defendants. The court submitted the question to the jury as to the number of acres occupied and used as pasture. Defendant also filed a counterclaim, at first claiming $ 806.25 for apples, tiling, crops destroyed by reason of ditching, hauling, meals, fencing, and so on. The items are numerous, and cover the two years. The account covers 14 or 15 pages in the abstract. Some of the matters claimed for are mentioned in the written lease, and the trial court instructed as to the rights of the parties, if the lease for the first year was in force for the second, and their rights if it was not in force.
In his reply, plaintiff pleaded a large number of articles for which he claims defendants were indebted to him, for merchandise furnished defendants, failure of defendants to trim hedge, to his damage, failure to haul manure, failure to deliver to plaintiff hay; that defendants permitted stock to feed upon plaintiff's share of the corn, and failed to deliver to plaintiff his share of hay, and numerous other items. The total amount of plaintiff's claims against defendants was $ 1,510.39, and he asked that this be offset against the defendants' claim. Thereupon, defendants amended their counterclaim, claiming certain items for which they claim plaintiff was indebted to them, for skim milk furnished plaintiff for several months, corn destroyed, damage to vegetables, damage for trespasses, and so on, increasing their counterclaim to $ 1,500; so that, so far as the counterclaim and plaintiff's offset are concerned, it was a case of "hoss and hoss" or fifty-fifty. In addition to the general verdict, the jury answered three interrogatories submitted by the court. The first one was as to the amount the jury found plaintiff entitled to on his claim for rent of the pasture land, and the answer was, "$ 480." Second: "State the amount, if any, which you find the defendants entitled to on their counterclaim;" and the answer was, "None." Third: "State the amount, if any, which you find plaintiff entitled to on his claim as an offset to the defendants' counterclaim." Answer, "None."
The plaintiff admitted some of the items...
To continue reading
Request your trial