Shaffer v. Stevens

Decision Date10 January 1896
Docket Number17,460
Citation42 N.E. 620,143 Ind. 295
PartiesShaffer v. Stevens
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Henry Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

J Brown and W. A. Brown, for appellant.

D. W Chambers, J. M. Brown and S. H. Brown, for appellee.

OPINION

Howard, J.

This was an action by appellee for damages, and to enjoin appellant from appropriating to his own use the undivided one-half of a crop of corn raised by him upon about seventeen acres of land.

It appears, as we gather from the record, that one James Gahn now deceased, during his lifetime, conveyed in fee simple the land in question, together with other land, to one Peyton E Ballard, subject to a life estate in the said Gahn.

James Gahn died during the latter part of April, or early in May, 1894. A few days before his death the neighbors planted the corn in dispute. Gahn left no children. His wife had died several years before his death.

The evidence, as we think, shows without contradiction that the appellant and his wife cared for both Gahn and his wife during the latter years of their lives, and particularly during their last sickness; and that about a week before Gahn's death, after the corn was planted, Gahn told several of the neighbors that he had given to appellant all his corn crop, that he could never repay appellant for what he had done for him, and that his corn crop was all he had to give him.

Some evidence was admitted over the objection of appellant that about a year before his death Gahn had said that all his personal property at his death was to go to Ballard, the remainderman. Even if this were proper evidence it could not affect the gift here attacked. The evidence was not that Gahn had given or disposed of any personal property to Ballard, but that it was "to go" to Ballard on Gahn's death. This was rather an indication of what Gahn intended to do than a statement of what he had done. Besides, the corn crop was not in existence at the time of the alleged transfer of personal property to Ballard.

The appellee claims the corn by virtue of a deed made of the land by Ballard a few days after the death of Gahn. She claims that although appellant cultivated the corn crop, and notwithstanding that the same was given to him by Gahn, yet that she, as now owner of the land, is entitled to the landlord's one-half of the crop.

There is no doubt that appellant performed long and faithful service for Gahn, and no doubt that Gahn, so far as he could, gave this corn crop to appellant in payment, or part payment, of such service. The only question for decision is whether Gahn, as life tenant, could give the corn crop to him, or whether on Gahn's death the relation of landlord and tenant at once arose between Ballard as successor to the land, and appellant as cultivator of the crop. We think the life tenant was owner of the annual crop, and might dispose of it during his lifetime.

Gahn was life tenant, and his title to the crop planted during his lifetime was certainly as good as that of any tenant could be to the crop planted during his tenancy.

It is the law in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

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