Haywood v. Rogers

Decision Date30 June 1875
Citation73 N.C. 320
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJOSEPH A. HAYWOOD v. MARCELLUS ROGERS.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

*1 A contract betwe??n A and B, that A might tend so much of B's land as he could cultivate with one horse during the year 1871; and that A was to pay B as rent, two bales of cotton out of the first picking--no part of the crop to belong to A until the rent was paid--constitutes A a cropper, and not a tenant of B.

( Dean v. Rice, 4 Dev. & Bat. 431, cited and approved.)

CIVIL ACTION tried before Henry, J., at January (Special) Term 1875, WAKE Superior Court.

The plaintiff alleged: that on or about the first day of January, 1871, he agreed with the defendant, that defendant might tend so much of plaintiff's land as he could cultivate with one horse, during the year 1871. That he was to pay as rent for the same two bales of cotton to be paid out of the first picking. No part of the crop was to be the property of the defendant until the rent was paid. The defendant raised upon said land, more than two bales of cotton; but took possession of the same and refuses to deliver the same to the plaintiff, alleging that the contract was to pay one-fourth of the crop.

That plaintiff has had two bales of said cotton levied on by the process of this court in order to discharge said rent. The plaintiff therefore demanded judgment that said two bales of cotton be delivered to him, &c.

The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action:

1. In that said complaint shows upon its face that defendant is a tenant and not a cropper.

2. That the complaint does not allege that the contract upon which this action was brought was in writing.

His Honor overruled the demurrer and gave judgment for the plaintiff, and thereupon the defendant appealed.

Busbee & Busbee, for appellant .

Fowle, contra .

PEARSON, C. J.

The legal effect of a lease for years, is to vest the ownership of the land in the tenant during the term, leaving a reversion in the landlord. This has been settled law ever since the days of Chief Justice ROLLE, when it was considered that the plaintiff in an action of ejectment should have a writ of possession. The tenant is entitled to estovers, house bote, cart bote, &c., and the crop belongs to him.

*2 The landlord has no right to put his foot upon the land during the term, and has no more right to interfere with the crops than a mere stranger. Dean v. Rice, 4 Dev. Bat. 431.

The demurer waives all other proof and the defendant undertakes to show on the argument, that the relation of landlord and tenant is established by the allegations of the complaint.

The only thing set out in the complaint that squints at the relation of landlord and tenant is the use of the words “The defendant was to pay as rent two bales of cotton,” &c. This feature of the case looks like a term for years.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT