Nye v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 10 January 1877
• Citation: 35 Mich. 413
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Nelson P. Nye and another v. James Patterson

35 Mich. 413

Nelson P. Nye and another v. James Patterson

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 10, 1877

Heard January 4, 1877

Error to Hillsdale Circuit.

This is an action of trover brought by plaintiffs in error to recover the value of twenty acres of growing wheat. They purchased the growing crop of one Alfred Hyland, who was a tenant of the defendant. The crop was growing upon the premises leased by Hyland of defendant. The lease was a written one and covered a term of five years from April 1, 1869, at an annual rent of five hundred dollars, payable at the end of each year. The wheat was sowed in the fall of 1872 and was sold to plaintiffs at public vendue March 14, 1873. No rent was then due and there had been no breach or forfeiture of the lease. On April 2, 1873, Hyland abandoned the premises and the next day delivered up possession to defendant, refusing to pay the rent due. The court directed the jury to render a verdict for defendant. Verdict and judgment having passed for defendant the plaintiffs brought error.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.

E. L & M. B. Coon, for plaintiffs in error.

L. H Salsbury and G. A. Knickerbocker, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Marston, J.:

In this case it is not necessary to determine whet plaintiffs' rights would have been as purchasers of the wheat at the sale made in March, in case the lease had been forfeited for non-payment of rent. The evidence in this case is clear, that at the time the wheat was sold to plaintiffs there had been no breach or forfeiture of the lease, and there was no certainty that there would be. Afterwards, upon the rent becoming due and being unpaid, the tenant abandoned the premises and agreed to surrender possession thereof to his landlord, the defendant, and the defendant entered into possession, not because of a forfeiture, but under this agreement. The tenant had a clear right to sell this wheat in March before the rent became due, and he could not, by any subsequent agreement with others, impair the title acquired at such sale. To so hold would but enable him to sell his growing crops, and afterwards, by collusion with his landlord, defeat the purchaser's title. We do not wish to be understood as even intimating that there was any such collusion in this case. The landlord seems to have acted in perfect good faith in making the agreement and taking possession, although he had full knowledge of...