Perry v. Beaupre

• Decision Date: 28 February 1888
• Citation: 50 N.W. 400,6 Dak. 49
• Parties: Perry et al. v. Beaupre.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

50 N.W. 400

6 Dak. 49

Perry et al.

v.Beaupre.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Dakota.

Feb. Term, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Cass county; W. B. McConnell, Judge.

Action by W. F. Perry and E. A. Perry against Bruno Beaupre for conversion of the half interest of defendant's tenant in a crop, on which plaintiffs had a mortgage. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Defendant leased his farm to one Wheat on shares, each to receive one-half of the crops raised thereon, and each to pay one-half of the expense of harvesting. Wheat, being indebted to plaintiffs, executed to them, to secure the debt, a mortgage on his share of the growing crops. After the mortgage was executed and recorded, defendant took possession of the land, and harvested and sold the entire crop. Defendant claimed that it was agreed between Wheat and himself that he was to have a lien on the crops to secure the performance of the contract of leasing, but this was denied by Wheat in his testimony. Defendant also claimed that Wheat became unable to harvest the crops, and that, by agreement with him, he (defendant) took possession and harvested them, and that the amount realized from the sale of Wheat's half was not sufficient to pay for the costs of completing the leasing contract. Wheat, in his testimony, denied that defendant took possession and harvested the crop by agreement with him. The court refused defendant's request to direct a verdict in his favor, and submitted the case to the jury, who returned a verdict for plaintiffs.

H. F. Miller, for appellant. A. E. Bayesen, ( A. D. Thomas, of counsel,) for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed. The pleadings of the parties and the parties in the court below treated the owner and occupant of the land as landlord and tenant, and this court will not now change their relation. Upon this theory of the case the court did not err in denying defendant's motion to direct a verdict, and in submitting the case to a jury. All the justices concur.