Jackson v. King

• Decision Date: 23 May 1887
• Citation: 3 So. 232,82 Ala. 432
• Parties: JACKSON v. KING.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 232

82 Ala. 432

JACKSON v. KING.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 23, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Marshall county; JAMES AIKEN, Judge.

This action was brought by Thomas J. King and others, children and heirs of Andrew King, deceased, against James L. Jackson, and was commenced on the thirteenth of January, 1886. The complaint contained but a single count, which claimed $2,000 "for the use and occupation by the defendant of the following lands belonging to the plaintiffs," describing them, "from the first of January, 1879, to the first of January, 1886." The cause was tried, as the bill of exceptions states, "on issue joined on the plea of non assumpsit," and on the trial the plaintiffs offered in evidence the written instrument under which the defendant entered into possession of the lands. This instrument was dated the seventeenth of July, 1877, was under seal, and was signed both by said Andrew King and the defendant. It recited that King was indebted to Jackson in the sum of $1,646.42, as evidenced by his promissory note of even date with the deed, payable one day after date, and desired to pay off and discharge said indebtedness; and, in consideration of said indebtedness, he leased and demised to said Jackson the said lands "for a term of less duration than twenty years, beginning with the current year, and to be determined when said note shall have been fully paid and discharged, in the manner herein directed and set forth; that is to say, the said Jackson shall each year credit said note with the proceeds, at the market price or value, of one-third of all the grain, and one-fourth of all the cotton, that may be grown or produced on said leased premises, until said note shall be fully paid and discharged, both principal and interest; and then, but not till then, shall this lease end and determine." The lease also bound the lessor to erect and finish the gin-house, press, and gearing, and to erect and keep in good repair the necessary fences upon and around the lands; and, in case of his failure or neglect so to do the lessee was authorized to erect and repair the fences, and to deduct the costs of the same from the rent to be paid. The lessee covenanted, on his part, by the terms of the lease "to cultivate said lands in such manner as he may deem best to secure the greatest profit therefrom; to strictly account for and properly credit the rents, as the same fall due, until said note has been paid as above set forth, and then to deliver up the said plantation, with the appurtenances, to the said Andrew King, his heirs and assigns, ordinary wear and tear," etc., excepted. It was shown that said Andrew King, the plaintiffs' father, died in the latter part of the year 1878; that there had never been any administration on his estate, and that the defendant, by his tenants, had been in possession of the leased premises ever since he first entered. "The plaintiffs insisted that the indebtedness mentioned in the lease, and evidenced by the note therein described, had been fully paid and satisfied by the rents received by defendant from his tenants prior to the commencement of this suit, and they offered evidence tending to establish this fact; but the evidence on this point was...