Noble v. Tyler

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MINSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).
• Citation: Noble v. Tyler, 61 Ohio St. 432, 56 N.E. 191 (Ohio 1900)
• Decision Date: 09 January 1900
• Parties: NOBLE v. TYLER.

56 N.E. 191

61 Ohio St. 432

NOBLE v. TYLER.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

January 9, 1900

Error to circuit court, Butler county.

Exceptions by Agnes Noble to the inventory filed by D. L. Tyler administrator of Marcella McLean, deceased. Judgment affirmed by circuit court, and petitioner beings error. Reversed.

The suit in error in this case grew out of exceptions filed in the probate court by the plaintiff in error to certain items in the inventory of the estate of Marcella McLean, deceased as filed by her administrator, D. L. Tyler. The exceptions were overruled, and an appeal taken to the common pleas. It as requested, found the facts, and thereon overruled the exceptions, and the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court. It appears from the finding of facts that Marcella McLean was the owner of a life estate in two certain farms one of 208 acres and the other of 83 acres, which estate had been devised to her by the will of her father, Elias Ayers who died March 13, 1885, the remainder being devised to certain of his grandchildren,-Walter Ayers, David Ayers, and Bertha Ayers. Marcella died August 22, 1893, testate, leaving the residuum of her property to Agnes Noble; and D. L. Tyler was duly appointed her administrator with the will annexed. Among what is claimed to be assets of her estate are two notes,-one for $800, made by John Burch, due March 1, 1894, and given for a year's rent of the 208-acre tract; and the other for $350, given by Charles McLean, due at the same time, and given for the rent of the 83-acre tract. The leases and the notes were made August 15, 1892, and September 3, 1892, respectively. The administrator, assuming that the rent should be apportioned between the estate of Marcella McLean, the life tenant, and the remainder-men, inventoried each note at half its value; the makers being perfectly solvent. The residuary legatee, Agnes Noble, filed exceptions to this, claiming that each note should be inventoried as an asset of the estate at its full value. The finding of fact in regard to the leasing of the farms and the giving of the notes is as follows: ‘That Marcella McLean held possession of said tracts of 208 acres and 83 acres from the death of her father, Elias Ayers, until her death, 22d August, 1893. That on 15th August, 1892, she leased the said 208 acres to John Burch to be seeded in the fall of 1892 and farmed for the year 1893. That Burch seeded about 36 acres in the fall of 1892 in wheat, which was by him harvested in June, 1893; 15 acres timothy harvested July, 1893; and that in the spring of 1893 he planted about 42 acres in corn on said farm, and it was all laid by as early as July, 1893, but which was not gathered and harvested until November, 1893. That at the date of said lease said Burch gave his note for $800 for said rent, payable to Marcella McLean, or order, on or before the 1st day of March, 1894. That on the 3d day of September, 1892, said Marcella McLean leased said 83 acres to Charles McLean, which was to be seeded by him in the fall of 1892, in part, and the balance farmed during the year 1893. That in the fall of 1892 he seeded on said tract 24 acres in wheat, and that the same was harvested in June, 1893. The balance of said farm he planted in corn in the spring of 1893, and it was all laid by as early as July, 1893, but which was not gathered and harvested until November, 1893. That for the rent for said year 1893 said Charles McLean gave his note for $350, the same payable to Marcella McLean, or her order, on or before March 1, 1894. Each of said notes was written on same piece of paper as the lease. Said two notes so given by John Burch and Charles McLean were in the possession of Marcella McLean at her death, and held by her, and came into the hands of said D. L. Tyler, as her said administrator with the will annexed, no part of the same having been paid.’

Syllabus by the Court

1. Rents are not apportionable between the administrator of a tenant for life and the remainder-men, where there is no privity, and the estate of the latter becomes an estate in possession immediately upon the death of the life tenant, and puts an end to the lease made by him.

2. The administrator of the estate of a tenant for life, or his lessee, is entitled, under sections 6026, 6027, Rev. St., to the ‘annual crops raised by labor,’ as assets of the estate of the deceased, whether severed or not at his death.

3. M the owner of a life estate, remainder to certain other persons, on August 15, 1892, leased the land to a tenant, to be farmed for a year, for which the lessor was to receive as rent $800. She died August 22, 1893. The wheat sown in the fall of 1892, together with the crops of 1893, had all been cultivated and harvested before her death, except the corn, which had been cultivated and laid by in July, and was harvested in November. The rent was secured by a note payable March 1, 1894. Held, that the note for the rent is assets of the estate of the deceased life tenants.

Millikin, Shotts & Millikin, for plaintiff in error.

Slayback & Harr, for defendant in error.

MINSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

The real question in this case is, when did the rent for which these notes were given accrue? If, upon the facts as found it accrued, in the proper sense of the term, in the lifetime of Marcella McLean, the notes, to their full value, should have been inventoried as assets of her estate. The lease in each case, or, more properly speaking, the agreement for the occupation and farming of the land, was made, the one August 15, 1892, and the other September 3d of the same year. They gave to the tenant in each case the right to seed part of the land in wheat in the fall of 1892, and to farm the land for the year 1893. This is the common way among farmers of renting lands to be farmed for a year; wheat, in our climate, being sown in the fall and harvested in the following summer. No one would claim, under this letting, either tenant could have sown his tract in wheat in the fall of 1893, with the right to harvest it in 1894, for all his rights in the premises were to end with the harvesting of the crops cultivated in that year, and the rent then accrued, and would have been payable, but for the agreement by which the time was extended to the 1st of March following. By an indulgence of the common law in favor of agriculture, incorporated in the statute law of this state (sections 6026, 6027, Rev. St.), one whose estate may be terminated by an event the time whereof is uncertain has the right to reap what he has sown, although this may, to some extent, trench upon the occupancy of the tenant of the next estate in remainder or reversion. This, however, cannot be said to impair the next estate, for it is an incident, created by law, of every estate in reversion or...