LaLlier v. Pac. Elevator Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1910 |
| Citation | 25 S.D. 572,127 N.W. 558 |
| Parties | LALLIER v. PACIFIC ELEVATOR CO. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Watertown.
Action by C. C. Lallier against the Pacific Elevator Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Sherin & Sherin, for appellant.
Case & Shurtleff, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff to recover the value of some oats which he claims to have sold the defendant. Trial was had before a jury, and its verdict being in favor of the plaintiff and judgment having been rendered in accordance therewith, the defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied. It then appealed to this court from such judgment and order denying a new trial.
There are numerous assignments of error, but the only ones which we consider of such importance as to warrant our attention, go to the question of the title to the oats at the time of the alleged sale. It appears that plaintiff was the lessee of one Fillenwarth, and that he had worked said Fillenwarth's land for the season of 1908, under a contract of the nature involved in the case of Consolidated Land & Irrigation Co. v. Hawley, 7 S. D. 229, 63 N. W. 904, being a lease or contract under which it is covenanted and agreed that the title of all crops raised shall remain in the lessor until division thereof made by such lessor which division the lessee is not entitled to until after full performance of conditions on his part, together with full payments of any claims the lessor may hold against him. Such contract also providing that the lessor may take and hold enough of the crops, that would upon division belong to the lessee, to repay all advances made by lessor to lessee and all indebtedness due from lessee to lessor. After full performance on the part of lessee and payment for all advances and indebtedness, the lessor was bound, upon reasonable request, to deliver one-half the grains raised under such contract to the lessee. When plaintiff rested his case in chief the defense moved for a directed verdict, which motion was denied, and this ruling is assigned as error. Such motion for directed verdict was based upon the grounds that no sale to defendant company had been proven; that the evidence showed the ownership of the oats to be in Fillenwarth; and that he had never transferred the title of plaintiff's share to him. We think the first ground above stated needs no discussion. As to the second ground, defendant has cited the Hawley Case, supra, as well as other authorities as to what things are necessary to be done by the lessee under a contract such as is before us before he is entitled to a division of the grain. There can be no question whatever, under the decisions of this court, as to what the lessor may require before delivering the grain raised under one of these contracts, but, on the other hand there can be no question but what the lessor can deliver the share of the grain to the lessee, and thus pass title to same to the lessee without the performance of any of the things which he might still have required as a condition precedent, and in this case, as the evidence stood when the request for directed verdict was made, there was ample to show that said Fillenwarth had delivered the grain in question to the plaintiff under such circumstances as would carry with such delivery the title to the grain in question.
After the court refused the above motion to direct verdict, the defendant introduced evidence which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial