Hostetler v. Eccles

• Decision Date: 28 December 1920
• Parties: HOSTETLER v. ECCLES.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

194 P. 166

98 Or. 355

HOSTETLER v. ECCLES.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 28, 1920

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County; J. U. Campbell, Judge.

Action by W. W. Hostetler against R. S. Eccles. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

In substance, the complaint alleges that on April 24, 1915, the plaintiff leased some land from the Base Line Land Company took possession, and remained in occupancy of the premises from that date until December, 1917. During the month of January, 1917, the lessor sold the property to the present defendant, also assigning and setting over unto him all of its interest in the lease.

It is then stated that about October 28, 1917, while the plaintiff was yet in possession of the premises, the defendant demanded possession and tendered $200 in gold, requiring the relinquishment of the property on November 1, 1917. The plaintiff declined to deliver possession, and afterwards Eccles instituted an action of forcible entry and detainer against the present plaintiff, resulting in a judgment whereby the plaintiff was obliged to give up the possession of the premises and the whole thereof, which he actually did in December, 1917. Thus far there is no issue on the allegations of the complaint.

The plaintiff goes on to say that before the demand was made for the possession of the premises he had sown 30 acres of wheat and 7 acres of oats, and had done some work cultivating the meadow, laying out labor, materials, and seed of the total reasonable value of $516.70. Averring a demand that the defendant reimburse him for seed and labor, which the defendant refused to do, the plaintiff alleges that there is now due and owing from the defendant to him the sum of $516.70, for which he demands judgment.

The lease in question, attached to and made a part of the complaint, contains the following provisions:

'It is further agreed that, in the event the aforesaid property is sold during the term of this lease and actual possession is required and demanded, the lessee herein will quit and deliver up the premises upon the following terms and conditions, to wit:

"If sale is made and possession is required prior to June 1st of any year during the term of this lease, the lessee shall be entitled to and shall receive payment for labor performed in planting crop and for seed planted, price for labor and seed to be adjusted by usual method of arbitration if an agreement cannot be reached otherwise.

"If sold and possession is required after June 1st and before November 1st of any year of the term of this lease, lessee shall be entitled to remain in possession until the November 1st following and to remove the crop. If lessee is allowed to remove crop, no payment is to be made him for seed or labor.

"In the event of sale as above set forth, lessee shall further receive a cash payment of $400 if possession is required before November 1, 1915, $300 if possession is required between November 1, 1915, and November 1, 1916, $200 if possession is required between November 1, 1916, and November 1, 1917, on receipt of which said lease is to be surrendered and canceled, providing terms hereinbefore set forth have been carried out."

The defendant demurred generally to the complaint, but the same was overruled. In the view of the case we take, we deem it unnecessary to consider the answer or the reply, because practically they raise the same questions involved in the demurrer. Suffice it to say that judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

James P. Stapleton, of Portland, for appellant.

W. W. Dugan, Jr., of Portland, for respondent.

BURNETT J. (after stating the facts as above).

The lease involved was for the purpose of farming or agriculture and it is said in section 2546, Or. L.:

"When the leasing or occupation is for the purpose of farming or agriculture, the tenant, or person in possession shall, after the termination of such lease or occupancy, have free access to the premises to cultivate and harvest, or gather any crop or produce of the soil planted or sown by him before the service of notice to quit."

We are not unmindful of the principle that, when the termination of a lease is specified to occur at a certain date, the tenant who sows a crop which cannot mature and be harvested before the termination of the lease, plants at his peril. This is not such a case. The termination of the lease involved is not one which would naturally occur by a mere lapse of the term. The ending of the lease as described in the complaint was uncertain, dependent upon whether or not the purchaser of the land should demand possession. The defendant here is concerned only about when demand is made for relinquishment irrespective of when the sale was made. Of course, a sale must have been made before he could be required to surrender possession. In other words, so long as the property was owned by the original landlord, the lease could not be terminated except for a breach or rescission, until its natural expiration on November 1, 1918. But, given a sale, it is within the prerogative of the new landlord to demand possession at any time. By the terms of the lease a demand of possession prior to June 1 of any year entitled the lessee to receive payment for labor performed in planting the crop and for seed planted, etc., and this was to be determined by the usual method of arbitration if an adjustment could not be reached otherwise. That is the formula appropriate to a demand made prior to June 1. Upon a demand made between then and November 1 the lessee is entitled to remain in possession until the 1st...