Richards v. Wardwell

• Decision Date: 15 February 1890
• Citation: 82 Me. 343,19 A. 863
• Parties: RICHARDS v. WARDWELL.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

19 A. 863

82 Me. 343

RICHARDS

v. WARDWELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 15, 1890.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Waldo county.

Montgomery & Montgomery, for plaintiff. W. P. Thompson and R. F. Dunton, for defendant.

EMERY, J. The plaintiff occupied the defendant's farm one farming season, and raised thereon hay, potatoes, turnips, apples, and cabbages, which he harvested and placed in the barns and cellar bins on the farm. He then left the farm, and the defendant had possession of the farm and the products. Soon afterwards the plaintiff came to the defendant at the farm, and demanded that one-half of the produce which had been so raised and stored be delivered to him. The defendant declining to deliver any of the produce, the plaintiff brought this action of trover for one-half of the same. There had not been any division of the produce.

Whatever may be the plaintiff's rights against the defendant, he, to maintain the action of trover, must affirmatively show that there has become vested in him the superior title to the specific articles, to the exclusion of any legal title of the defendant. If they were co-owners, tenants in common, or partners in the title, the plaintiff cannot maintain trover for any part of the articles. Dain v. Cowing, 22 Me. 347; Crabtree v. Clapham, 67 Me. 326.

Title commonly depends upon the contract of the parties concerned with the thing. The title to the crops raised by one man on another man's farm depends largely, if not entirely, upon the contract between the two men. If the contract amounts to a lease or demise of the farm by the owner to the occupier, then, clearly, the crops belong to the occupier, whether he pays rent in money or in kind, by a share of the crops. The occupier in such case becomes the owner pro hoc vice, and has title to the products of the farm until division. Bailey v. Fillebrown, 9 Me. 12; Jordan v. Staples, 57, Me. 352. If the contract, however, does not amount to a lease, but is instead a contract for hiring the occupier to carry on the farm, the owner to pay him one-half of the products as compensation, then the occupier is not owner pro hoc vice, but is the servant of the owner, entitled to receive one-half of the products as compensation, while the title to the products remains in the owner of the farm. Kelley v. Weston, 20 Me. 232. Of course the contract may be greatly varied, and vest the title in one or the other, or both, as co-owners, tenants in...