Smith v. Howell

Decision Date24 December 1918
Citation91 Or. 279,176 P. 805
PartiesSMITH ET AL. v. HOWELL ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harney County; Gustav Anderson, Judge.

Suit by W. E. Smith and another against Wellington G. Howell and others for an injunction and an accounting. From a decree dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This is a suit to restrain the defendants from using or preventing plaintiffs' use of 750 tons of hay, and for an accounting for the use and occupation, or rents, issues, and profits for a certain parcel of land redeemed from sheriff's sale during the time the same was occupied by the purchaser thereunder. It appears that on January 22, 1918, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, omitting the authorization to so file and the allegation of the corporate existence of defendant Pacific Live Stock Company, is as follows:

"That at all the dates and times hereinafter mentioned the defendants Wellington G. Howell and Willard N. Jones were except as hereinafter stated, and now are, the owners of the following described tract of real estate situated in Harney county, state of Oregon [omitting description].

"That at all times hereinafter mentioned the said tract of land was, and now is, surrounded with a fence, which incloses not only the said Howell tract, but also about 80 acres of land which the plaintiffs have under lease from one Horton and commonly known as the Horton tract, and also includes several hundred acres of meander land between the said Howell tract and the said Malheur Lake, and which said meander land belongs to the government of the United States.

"That on the 16th day of January, 1915, the said Wellington G Howell and Willard N. Jones, for value received, duly made executed, and delivered to one C. A. Haines their certain mortgage in writing on the above-described Howell tract, to secure the payment of a debt of $10,000, which said defendants were then owing to the said Haines, and thereafter, and on February 26, 1915, the said mortgage was duly recorded in the records of real estate mortgages for Harney county, Or.

"That on March 18, 1916, the said C. A. Haines, as plaintiff instituted a suit in the circuit court of the state of Oregon for the county of Harney against Wellington G. Howell, Willard N. Jones, and others, as defendants, for the purpose of foreclosing the above-described mortgage and having the mortgaged premises sold at sheriff's sale and execution for the purpose of satisfying the said debt of $10,000, with interest and costs, and thereafter such proceedings were had in said court in the said suit that on the 14th day of April, 1916, a judgment and decree in foreclosure was duly rendered in said cause in favor of the said C. A. Haines and against the said defendants in said suit, for the sum of $10,413, and the further sum of $740 attorney fees, and $20.50 costs, and which said judgment was duly enrolled and docketed in the judgment docket of said court, and in and by said decree it was adjudged and decreed that the sheriff of Harney county should sell the above-described Howell tract at sheriff's sale on execution for the purpose of paying the said judgment.

"That thereafter an execution on said judgment was duly issued out of the said circuit court by the clerk thereof, under seal of said court, and signed by the county clerk of Harney county, Or., and directed to the sheriff of said county, ordering and directing the said sheriff to sell the said mortgaged premises at sheriff's sale on execution in the manner provided by law, for the purpose of satisfying the said judgment, and said execution was duly received by the said sheriff and thereafter, and on July 22, 1916, the said sheriff, acting under said execution, did duly seize and levy upon the said Howell tract of land for the purpose of carrying out the orders contained in said execution.

"That thereafter, and on August 24, 1916, the said sheriff, after giving public notice as required by the laws of the state of Oregon, duly sold the said tract of real estate at public auction in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Oregon to the plaintiffs herein for the sum of $13,100, and did then and there, at the request of the plaintiffs, execute and deliver to the plaintiff W. E. Smith a proper sheriff's certificate of sale for said real estate, and thereafter the said sheriff duly made and filed his report of said sale and his return on said execution with the county clerk of Harney county, Or., and thereafter, and on October 25, 1916, the said execution sale was duly confirmed by order of the circuit court for Harney county, Or.

"That immediately after said execution sale the plaintiffs entered into possession of said premises under the said sheriff's certificate of sale, and found the said premises to consist of a tract of pasture and hay land, but the said tract had been neglected for years and was in a run-down condition, and the fences were out of repair and broken down, and the said tract was open to the public range and was in no condition to produce crops, and had not produced crops for a great many years immediately prior thereto, and the taxes were delinquent upon the said tract, and the title to a portion of said tract was defective, and the entire tract was in such a run-down and neglected condition that it was not fit for husbandry, and the reasonable rental value of the entire tract was not worth more than $500 per year.

"That the plaintiffs, upon taking possession of said tract of land, paid the delinquent taxes thereon and perfected the title thereto, and cleared the ground by burning dead grass and tules and furnished posts, wire, and labor, and repaired the fences on said premises, and put the same in condition to turn live stock, and in general expended a great deal of work, labor, and money in clearing off and repairing the said premises and putting the same in a condition for producing crops, and all of which repairs were absolutely necessary to put the said premises in a cropping condition, and plaintiffs were out over $2,000 in such work, labor, and expense, and all of which expenditures were absolutely necessary to put the said premises in proper condition to produce a crop thereon and make them fit for the purpose for which said premises had always been used.

"That plaintiffs continued to hold the said premises under their said sheriff's certificate of sale, and to farm and care for said premises until the 15th day of September, 1917, and during that period the plaintiffs, by reason of their work and labor in repairing, preparing, and caring for the said premises, were able to and did cause a large crop of wild hay to grow thereon, and actually put up and harvested about 600 tons of hay on the said Howell tract, and about 100 tons of hay on the said meander lands, and about 50 tons of hay on the said Horton tract, and which said hay was and is worth from $5 to $10 per ton, and plaintiffs necessarily expended over $2,500 for the necessary expenses of cutting, harvesting, and putting up the said crop.

"That on the 15th day of September, 1917, the defendant Pacific Live Stock Company furnished the defendants, Wellington G. Howell and Willard N. Jones with the necessary funds for redeeming said premises, and the said Howell and Jones did then and there redeem the said Howell premises from said execution sale, by paying the plaintiffs the sum of $14,836.38, being the purchase price of said premises, with the interest, taxes, and cost of perfecting title, and the said Howell and Jones did then and there receive certificate of redemption to said property and again entered into the possession of the same and also took possession of the said meander land and the said Horton tract, inclosed with the said Howell lands.

"That at the date of said redemption the plaintiffs had cut and severed all of the hay from the soil on all of said premises, and had the same nearly all in stacks, but the stacking of a small part of said hay was completed after the said date of redemption, and at the time said redemption was made the plaintiffs had cut from the said Howell land and stacked thereon 14 stacks of hay, containing about 600 tons, and had cut from the said meander land and stacked thereon 2 stacks of hay, containing about 100 tons, and had cut from the said Horton tract and stacked thereon one stack of hay, containing about 50 tons, and said stacks as they were put up were each and all separately inclosed with stock-proof post and wire fence, and the material and labor for which was furnished by plaintiffs.

"That immediately upon said redemption being made the defendants Howell and Jones mortgaged the said Howell premises to the defendant Pacific Live Stock Company for $20,000, and had also then and there turned the possession of said Howell premises and of said meander lands and of said Horton tract, with plaintiffs' 750 tons of hay thereon, over to the said Pacific Live Stock Company under some contract or understanding with said company, the exact terms and nature of which are unknown to these plaintiffs, but plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the fact to be, that the said corporation agreed to protect the said Howell and Jones against any claims of these plaintiffs, and to assume any obligation which the said Howell and Jones might be found to be owing the plaintiffs and growing out of the redemption of said premises.

"That on the 16th day of November, 1917, the said Pacific Live Stock Company, for some reason unknown to these plaintiffs served a written notice upon plaintiffs ordering and directing them to keep off from the said premises, and not to come thereon, and not to touch or interfere with the hay which plaintiffs had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hawkins v. City of La Grande
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1993
    ...crops "does not attach to the land or to any interest in the land. It attaches to the crop only."). As we have said in Smith v. Howell, 91 Or. 279, 293, 176 P. 805 (1919), "a growing crop * * * becomes upon severance from the realty personalty." The court has also said that an Oregon statut......
  • Haskin v. Greene
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1955
    ...that of the redemption statute. As there used the words apply only to net profits and such as are of the nature of rent. Smith v. Howell, 91 Or. 279, 297, 176 P. 805. They do not include the proceeds of a policy of fire Two other questions growing out of the accounting are raised by the app......
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. 6354 Figarden Gen. P'ship
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 2015
    ...the land and includes herbage, wood, turf, coal, minerals, stone, fish in a pond or running water, crops and livestock]; Smith v. Howell (1918) 91 Or. 279, 176 P. 805 [owner may recover rents and profits from farmer in adverse possession, but not the full value of crops raised and harvested......
  • In re Nordyke
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Oregon
    • October 4, 1984
    ...even though his tenancy has terminated or expired. O.R.S. 91.230; Wodecki v. West, 165 Or. 504, 108 P.2d 521 (1940); Smith v. Howe, 91 Or. 279, 176 P. 805 (1918); but see Calcagno v. Holcomb, 181 Or. 603, 185 P.2d 251 (1947). Where a tenant refuses to surrender premises and holds over, he h......
  • 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