McBroom v. Wilgus

• Decision Date: 11 December 1920
• Docket Number: 22,369
• Parties: GEORGE B. MCBROOM, Appellee, v. E. S. WILGUS, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

193 P. 1068

108 Kan. 14

GEORGE B. MCBROOM, Appellee, v. E. S. WILGUS, Appellant

No. 22,369

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 11, 1920

Decided July, 1920

Appeal from Seward district court; GEORGE J. DOWNER, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

CONTRACT--Option to Rent Land--Option Not Exercised--Contract Forfeited--Injunction. One who has an option to rent farming lands on payment of rent at the beginning of the farm-rental year, March 1, may properly be enjoined from meddling with those lands if he has failed to give the grantor of the option some notification of his election to farm the lands and has failed to pay the specified rent at the time stipulated in the contract.

G. W Sawyer, of Liberal, for the appellant.

G. L. Light, of Liberal, and R. H. Loofbourrow, of Beaver City, Okla., for the appellee.

OPINION

DAWSON, J.:

The plaintiff, as agent and tenant of the owners of some Seward county lands, brought injunction proceedings to restrain the defendant from entering upon and farming certain portions of these lands in the spring of 1918.

In his answer, defendant pleaded a general denial, and set up a lease between plaintiff and defendant, executed June 1, 1917, which specifically covered other lands in the vicinity described as tracts 1, 2 and 3, and prescribed the rental for tract 2 at one dollar per acre payable on March 1 of each year by cash or promissory note. As to the lands in dispute in this lawsuit, the lease provides:

"It is further agreed that in case second party (defendant) is able to handle the same, the first party hereby leases subject to the same conditions as Tract 2 above mentioned, 58 acres cultivated land on the Southeast 13 and 70 acres cultivated land on the Northeast 13, both tracts in twp. 35, range 31, the lease of these last 128 acres to be for the seasons of 1918 and 1919."

Defendant also pleaded that during the year 1917 he was in possession of the other lands covered by the lease, and--

"That defendant prior to the season for preparing and putting in crop prepared to take possession of said premises, and was ready and able to handle the same, as plaintiff well knew, and defendant alleges, that in due season, he entered into possession of said 128-acre tract in accordance with the rights and privileges expressed in said contract and is rightfully entitled to possession thereof. That defendant has not waived or abandoned his rights to said tract of 128 acres, but has entered into possession and carried out his part of the agreement in good faith up until the commencement of this suit; that he is ready, able and willing to further carry out the terms of said contract, and hereby offers to pay the rental thereon, and hereby tenders into court for the benefit of the plaintiff the rental therefor, to be paid to said plaintiff in the manner and on the terms of the contract as determined by the court."

Plaintiff's action was filed and temporary restraining order issued on March 13, 1918. Prior thereto, on March 5, 1918, plaintiff notified defendant that as the latter had not elected to take and farm the lands in dispute, and the time for him to elect to do so under the terms of the lease had expired, the option to handle...