Sanders v. Ellington

• Decision Date: 30 June 1877
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: A. C. SANDERS v. J. C. ELLINGTON.

77 N.C. 255

A. C. SANDERS

v.J. C. ELLINGTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1877.

CIVIL ACTION, tried at January Special Term, 1877, of WAKE Superior Court, before Schenck, J.

This action was brought to recover the value of five bales of cotton raised upon the land of the defendant by one Pool. The plaintiff's claim was based upon a mortgage executed to him by Pool in February, 1872, conveying the crops raised upon the land for said year. The defendant's claim was based upon a verbal contract with Pool, under which Pool worked the land in 1870-'71-'72. The defendant introduced a witness who testified that in January, 1872, the defendant executed a paper writing or lien for the purpose of obtaining supplies in 1872, and that defendant directed the witness to furnish Pool some supplies and charge them to him, (defendant), and that Pool did accordingly get the supplies. Defendant's counsel then proposed to prove the contents of said paper writing to show that it gave a lien on the crop in question, but this was ruled out on objection by plaintiff; for that, the writing was not produced nor its loss accounted for.

It was in evidence that Pool left the State in December, 1872, without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, leaving cotton to the amount of five bales, ungathered, and that in February, 1873, the defendant gathered and sold it as his property. It was insisted that as Pool had abandoned his contract, the cotton became the property of defendant, and that he was not liable to the plaintiff even if Pool was a tenant. Upon the facts found by the jury the Court held that the defendant was liable. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.

Messrs. Gray & Stamps, Battle & Mordecai and Busbee & Busbee, for plaintiff .

Messrs. D. G. Fowle and W. H. Pace, for defendant .

PEARSON, C. J.

When the parties to an action agree upon a matter of fact, they are bound by it, and it is not the duty of the Judge to interfere, for he is presumed to be ignorant of the facts. When the parties agree upon a matter of law, they are not bound by it, and it is the duty of the Judge to interfere and correct the mistake, if there be one, as to the law, for he is presumed to know the law, and it is his province to declare it.

In this case all of the facts were agreed on, except the facts relative to the question as to whether one Pool was a cropper of the defendant, or a lessee for one year. Upon these facts there was conflicting testimony. The jury find that Pool was a tenant of the defendant, and His Honor thereupon gave judgment that the plaintiff recover. In this there is error.

Suppose Pool was a tenant for one year, the defendant as owner of the land was entitled to the cotton standing in the field after the expiration of the term, and the plaintiff had no cause of action in regard to the cotton. This is a matter of law, which it was the duty of His Honor to decide, and the responsibility of deciding it cannot be shifted and put upon the shoulders of the parties. This error was not caused by the admission of the parties set out in the statement of the case, that “if Pool was a tenant, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and if Pool was a cropper, the defendant was entitled to the verdict.”

A tenant for years may remove fixtures and anything put there by himself, provided he does so before his term expires; but after that, all of such things belong to the owner of the land, and the quondam tenant has no right to put his foot upon the land, except by the license of the owner. All of the cases agree that such is the law. See, among others, Lyde v. Russell, 20 E. C. L. 394. A tenant for years had fixed bells to the house, but did not take them away before his term expired; He...