Sayles v. Wilson

Decision Date15 February 1924
Docket Number1071
Citation31 Wyo. 55,222 P. 1020
PartiesSAYLES v. WILSON
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

ERROR to District Court, Park County; JAMES H. BURGESS, Judge.

Action by D. H. Wilson against Frank L. Thayer, Henry Sayles and the Sayles Sheep Company, upon a cropper's contract to enjoin removal of crops. There was a judgment for plaintiff and the last two named defendants bring error, joining defendants Thayer as defendant in error.

Affirmed.

Enterline and Maley and J. H. Van Horn for plaintiffs in error.

The finding of the trial court that the lease could not be reformed is sustained by the evidence, Stoll v Nagel, 15 Wyo. 86; Grieve v. Grieve, 15 Wyo 358; Weltner v. Thurman, 17 Wyo. 268; 24 Cyc. 1067 8 R. C. L. 86. The lease being for five years was a conveyance requiring acknowledgment before it could be recorded, 4576 Comp. Stats.; it was not recorded, there was no constructive notice of its existence; no covenants were implied, 4526 Comp. Stats. the interpretation put upon the contract by the parties will be adopted by the court, Denio Co. v. Malin, 25 Wyo. 143. The parties construed it as a lease, the lessee's interest in the crop is subject to levy and sale, 8 R. C. L. 22, Wagner v. Buttles, 151 Wis. 668, 138 N.W. 425, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 144; Colville v. Miles, 127 N.Y. 159, 24 A. S. R. 433; Cook-Reynolds Co. v. Wilson, 214 P. 1104. Objections interposed by plaintiffs in error to evidence mentioned in the statement should have been sustained, plaintiff failed to establish a case against plaintiff in error, and their motion for nonsuit should have been sustained.

Lonabaugh and Wenzell for D. H. Wilson, defendant in error.

The court held that the interpretation put upon the contract by the parties should govern, Denio Co. v. Malin, 25 Wyo. 143; Rohrbaugh v. Mokler, 26 Wyo. 514; in the absence of oral testimony it would be impossible to determine what the agreement was; the trial court was right in holding the contract to be of hire, in so far as it related to hay; crops from leased lands during tenancy are the property of the tenant, in the absence of any stipulation affecting it; the agreement in effect was a cropper's contract, 8 R. C. L. 19; Kelly v. Rummerfield, 98 A. S. R. 953, and cases in note; possession of the ranch was never surrendered to Thayer, nor did he at any time live upon it, Wilson having retained possession, the rights of landlord and tenant were not created by the contract, but simply those of landowner and cropper.

POTTER, Chief Justice. BLUME and KIMBALL, JJ., concur.

OPINION

POTTER, Chief Justice.

This suit was brought in the district court by D. H. Wilson, as plaintiff, against Frank L. Thayer, Henry Sayles and the Sayles Sheep Co., a corporation, as defendants, and the case is brought here on error by the two last named defendants, complaining of the final judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff upon a trial to the court without a jury; the defendant Thayer and the plaintiff being joined as defendants in error. The controversy arose out of a written contract entered into on the first day of March, 1918, between the said Wilson as party of the first part and Thayer as party of the second part. Omitting the paragraph stating the date and the names of the parties, the contract reads as follows:

"That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be kept and performed by the said party of the second part, executors and administrators has demised and leased to the said party of the second part, all those premises situated and being in the County of Park, and the State of Wyoming, known as follows, to-wit: All lands belonging to party of first part, except leases, sheep pasture, potato ground and coal mines.

To have and to hold the above described premises, with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, his executors, administrators and assigns, from March 1st, 1918, for and during and until March first, 1923. And the said party of the second part, in consideration of the leasing of the premises aforesaid by the said party of the first part, to the said party of the second part, does covenant and agree with the said party of the first part, heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to pay to the said party of the first part, as rent for the said premises, the sum of one third. The said party of the second part agrees to brush meadows, clean all ditches and laterals, and irrigate and put up hay and fence stacks all in good for $ 4.66 2/3 per ton. If hay is not put up in good condition, it is forfeit. Party of the second part to reserve not exceeding 25 tons of hay on all places for own use, river place not included. And the said party of the second part further covenants with the said party of the first part, that said party has received said demised premises in good order and condition, and at all expiration of the time mentioned in the lease will yield up the said premises to the said party of the first part in as good order and condition as when they were entered upon by the said party of the second part, loss by fire or inevitable accident, or ordinary wear excepted, and will also keep said premises in good repair during the lease, at his own expense.

It is further agreed by the said party of the second part that neither he or his legal representatives will underlet said premises or any part thereof, or assign this lease, without the written consent of the said party of the first part had and obtained thereto.

The party of the second part agrees to stack and fence in good condition all unmatured grain that cannot ripen, for hay at $ 4.66 2/3 per ton.

All brush land party of second part puts in, he gets all he raises first year and furnishes seed, and party of first part gets straw and pasture. Party of the first agrees to pay $ 1.25 per hundred for grain except what is kept by party of second part for own use, which is not to exceed 1/4.

Party of the first part gets all straw and pasture, party of second part fences all straw piles in good condition. The party of second part is to sell no grain other than to party of the first part. If the party of first part furnishes seed he gets 1/6 of grain raised on brush land. Party of second part agrees to furnish all help to haul and deliver grain to bin of party of first part. Bins to be placed where grain is raised.

Party of the second part agrees to sow any grass seed with grain and to irrigate same so as to protect seed from drought. Party of the first part agrees to furnish seed. The party of the second part is to cut no timber or use any useful material such as posts, stays, poles for firewood. If party of the first part furnishes seed grain, party of second part returns same at threshing with interest at 10% from time of seeding until time returned.

Party of second part is not to receive any pasture or any of his help. Party of the first part is to furnish a reasonable amount of money for wages for work done on ranches of party of first part at 8% interest. The said party of the second part agrees to have all stacks fenced by October 1st. It is agreed between first and second parties that hay is to be fed where it is. And the biggest share of cattle is to be off by May 1st. The party of second part is not to cut any posts or stays without permission of party of first part, on said premises. Party of first part agrees to furnish all material for any new flumes, ditches and headgates;

Party of first part agrees to furnish money to pay two irrigators, also $ 5.00 an acre for crop plowing and $ 3.00 an acre for summer fallowing. Payment to be made the 15th of each month, also money to pay men for haying. Party of the first part agrees to furnish all material for fences such as hay corrals and outside fences. Hay to be measured thirty days after stacking, according to State rule."

The suit was commenced on November 4, 1919, to enjoin the threatened removal of hay from the premises. The amended petition upon which the case was tried was filed November 13 of that year. It alleges the plaintiff's legal ownership and possession of certain lands, but stating that the agreement to lease was for a portion only thereof, viz: "the hay meadows and farming and cultivated grounds." It alleges further that the agreement as written does not contain the entire contract, and is uncertain, ambiguous and contradictory, in that it fails to state the manner, the time when, and whether in property or money, the defendant should pay one-third, or to what crops that provision related; fails to clearly state that plaintiff was to retain all hay on the premises, except 25 tons; fails to state the true agreement that plaintiff was to pay defendant $ 4.66 2/3 per ton for irrigating, stacking and fencing said hay, cleaning ditches and brushing the meadows; fails to state that plaintiff agreed to pay that sum for the unmatured grain to be stacked as hay, or that said grain, when so stacked, should be plaintiff's property; fails to state that plaintiff reserved for his own use the houses and other buildings on the premises, and to state clearly that the hay was to be fed by plaintiff on the premises where stacked; all of which were intended by the parties to be included in the contract, but were not so included through the oversight and mistake of plaintiff's son in preparing the agreement, but which errors and omissions were not the result of carelessness or negligence on plaintiff's part, and were not discovered by him until the fall of 1919.

Said petition further alleges that when the agreement was made the plaintiff was and "still is" the owner of about 1200 head of cattle, and that said contract was entered into with the knowledge that said cattle...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hall Oil Company v. Barquin
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 2 Junio 1925
    ... ... this state, and a motion for non-suit or dismissal has long ... been held improper under our practice. See Sayles v ... Wilson, 31 Wyo. 55, 222 P. 1020. The recognized ... procedure is a motion or request for a directed verdict, if ... it be desired to test ... ...
  • Moshannon Nat. Bank v. Iron Mountain Ranch Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 1933
    ...of a petition for want of prosecution is authorized by the code (R. S. 89-2204). Mulhern v. U. P. R. R. Co., 2 Wyo. 465; Sayles v. Wilson, 31 Wyo. 55, 63-68; King Giblin, 36 Wyo. 448, 458; Grieve v. Huber, 38 Wyo. 223, 232; Sutton v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 114 Wis. 647, 650. The only ......
  • Thex v. Shreve
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 8 Mayo 1928
    ...236 P. 513; Knox v. Gerhauser, 3 Mont. 267; Shevrier v. Roberts, 6 Mont. 319. The motion for non-suit is properly overruled, Sayles v. Wilson, 31 Wyo. 55; in all cases decision must be upon the merits, 5858, 5879; Hall Oil Co. v. Barquin, (Wyo.) 237 P. 255. H. Glenn Kinsley and R. E. McNall......
  • Bowman v. Bowman
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 6 Septiembre 1938
    ... ... See ... 9 Ruling Case Law 464; Brown v. Brown, 37 N.H. 536; ... Section 89-2205, W. R. S. 1931; Sayles v. Wilson, 31 ... Wyo. 55, 222 P. 1020; Jones v. Wettlin, 39 Wyo. 331, ... at 344; 271 P. 217; Hennessy v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., et ... al., 24 Wyo ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT