Fuglede v. Wenatchee Dist. Co-op. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 08 May 1925
• Docket Number: 18732.
• Parties: FUGLEDE v. WENATCHEE DIST. CO-OP. ASS'N et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

235 P. 790

134 Wash. 350

FUGLEDE v. WENATCHEE DIST. CO-OP. ASS'N et al.

No. 18732.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 8, 1925

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; Cerben, Judge, pro tem.

Action by L. E. Fuglede, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Nellie Bohlke, deceased, against the Wenatchee District Co-operative Association, in which the defendant filed a cross-complaint in the nature of a bill of interpleader interpleading the Associated Fruit Company and others. Judgment for the Associated Fruit Company, and plaintiff and unnamed interpleaded parties appeal. Affirmed.

S. A Bostwick, of Everett, for appellants.

C. F Wallace, of Wenatchee, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

Prior to any of the transactions out of which the present controversy arises, one H. G. Bohlke and his then wife, Nellie Bohlke, as a community, were the owners of certain described lands situated in Chelan county, on which there was a fruit orchard. They had executed large mortgages on the property, which were foreclosed by their holders after the transactions referred to, and neither of the parties to the present action have now any interest in the lands. Nellie Bohlke died prior to the year 1921, and following her death H. G. Bolke was appointed administrator of her estate. On April 18, 1921, while the administration was pending, Bohlke contracted to sell to C. M. Karlstad an undivided one-half interest in the land. The contract price agreed upon was $32,800. Of this sum $500, so the contract of sale recites, was paid at the time of the execution of the instrument. By the further terms of the contract, Karlstad assumed and agreed to pay one-half of the principal mortgage then on the land and the whole of another mortgage. The remainder of the purchase price he agreed to pay in fixed yearly installments. On the execution of the contract Karlstad was put into possession of the property.

On February 21, 1922, Karlstad entered into a contract with the respondent Associated Fruit Company, known as a crop contract. By the terms of the contract the company agreed to make certain advances to Karlstad for the purpose of growing and harvesting the fruit crop to be grown on the land during growing season of that year, and Karlstad, in turn, agreed to turn over the crop produced to the company to be marketed. The contract contained chattel mortgage provisions, by which Karlstad mortgaged all his interests in the fruit to the company as security for the advances. The company, at the time of the execution of the contract, advanced to Karlstad the sum of $2,310.53, taking his promissory note therefor. During the growing season it made further advancements at different times; the total aggregating $409.07. Karlstad breached his part of the contract; he neither delivered the crop grown to the company, nor did he repay to it the advances.

Karlstad delivered the crop to the Wenatchee District Co-Operative Association for marketing, and that association marketed the fruit. It made large advances to Karlstad in the way of expenses for harvesting, boxing, and delivering the fruit, and advances of large sums of money, the purpose of which was not specified. The company, after selling the fruit and after deducting its advancements and charges, and remaining on hand, for the person entitled to the proceeds of the fruit, the sum of $2,473.42.

On March 10, 1922, H. G. Bohlke, the administrator of the estate of Nellie Bohlke died. Her estate at that time had not been fully administered, and on December 18, 1922, the appellant L. E. Fuglede was appointed as administrator de bonis non of the estate. Between these dates there was no one acting as administrator, and it was during this period that the crops affected by the contract between the Associated Fruit Company and Karlstad were grown and severed.

On May 5, 1923, the administrator de bonis non began the present action against the defendant Wenatchee District Co-Operative Association, to recover the sum in their hands for the benefit of the estate of Nellie Bohlke. The association, after putting in issue certain of the allegations of the complaint, filed a cross-complaint by which it brought into the action Karlstad, one Mable Bohlke (who was the second wife of H. G. Bohlke and the guardian of his children), and the Associated Fruit Company, alleging that these parties claimed adverse interests in the funds in its hands, and that it could not determine to whom it rightfully belonged. It thereupon paid the money into court and asked that the court make the distribution. The adverse claimants set up their claims, and on the issues framed between them the court determined that the property out of which the fund arose was the property of Karlstad, that Karlstad had authority and right to pledge the property for his own uses, and that he did pledge it to the Associated Fruit Company. In the judgment entered, it awarded the money to the Associated Fruit Company in satisfaction of the advances made by it to Karlstad under the contract.

It is a well-settled rule that a crop sown or grown by one in possession of land wrongfully, as long as it remains unsevered, belongs to the owner of the land. Warner v. Sohn, 86 Neb. 519, 125 N.W. 1072, 21 Ann. Cas. 427, and note. It is equally well settled that, where the rightful owner of land has been dispossessed, whether rightfully or wrongfully, all crops grown and severed by the dispossessor belong to him, and that the rightful owner, even after a recovery of possession, has no right to them. Id. It is true, of course, that the rightful owner of land after re-entry may recover from the person wrongfully in possession for the value of the use of the premises and for waste, but this gives him no right to the crops grown thereon and severed therefrom. As is said by the Supreme Court of California in Page v. Fowler, 39 Cal. 412, 2 Am. Rep. 462:

'It is undoubtedly true that, at common law, a person who had been ousted from land might, after a recovery and re-entry, maintain his action of trespass for the mesne profits and for waste, for the reason that after re-entry the law supposes he has always been seized and

...