Snortland v. Olsonawski
| Decision Date | 23 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 45490,45490 |
| Citation | 307 Minn. 116,238 N.W.2d 215 |
| Parties | T. L. SNORTLAND, Appellant, v. Larry OLSONAWSKI, Respondent, Northcote Farmers Cooperative Association, Defendant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the lessor's interest has been assigned, the lessee may continue to regard the lessor as the owner of the lessor's interest in the leasehold until the lessee has been given notice of the assignment.
Solberg & Stewart and Garylle B. Stewart, Fargo, N.D., Lamb, Schaefer & McNair and Michael D. McNair, Moorhead, for appellant.
Brink, Sobolik & Severson, Dennis M. Sobolik and Ronald C. Vroom, Hallock, for respondent.
Heard before OTIS, SCOTT and AMDAHL, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
*
Appeal from an order of the district court dismissing an action brought by plaintiff-appellant, T. L. Snortland, after he had presented his case and rested in a jury trial. The action was against the lessee of farmland for damages alleged to have arisen from (1) disposition of crops in which Snortland claimed a one-third interest harvested from the land; and (2) the lessee's failure to return the land to the lessor in the same condition as it was when the lease commenced. Affirmed.
Arnold and Earl Getschel were owners of approximately 320 acres of farmland in Kittson County, Minnesota. The land had been farmed from the fall of 1970 until 1972 by Andrew Olsonawski and since 1972 by his son Larry, defendant-respondent herein, pursuant to an oral year-to-year lease under which the lessor was to receive one-third of the crops in consideration of the lease.
At some time after May 2, 1973, but prior to July 3, 1973, some type of purchase agreement was concluded between the Getschels and appellant Snortland whereby Snortland succeeded to the lessor's rights in the property. At the time of the agreement Snortland knew that the land was being farmed by tenants.
By letter dated May 2, 1973, the Olsonawskis were notified by Arnold Getschel that the land was 'in the process of being sold to an investor in Fargo,' and 'as soon as the papers are final which should be within a month I will give you his name and address.' By letter dated July 3, 1973, the Olsonawskis were informed that the land had been sold to Snortland.
In 1971, Andrew Olsonawski contacted Arnold Getschel and inquired as to the disposition of the lessor's share of the crop as there were no storage facilities on the land. He was told to move it to an elevator and handle it in the same way as he handled his own share. In July 1972, Andrew again contacted Arnold and informed him he had contracted with an elevator to sell the 1972 crop, including the Getschel share. Arnold indicated his approval.
On May 25, 1973, Larry Olsonawski sold the 1973 wheat crop to Northcote Farmers Cooperative Association for $2.43 per bushel. In his view it was necessary to make arrangements that early, even though deliveries did not begin until August 16, 1973, because the 1973 harvest was expected to be bountiful and storage space might otherwise be unavailable. The Getschels were not consulted regarding the disposition of the crop in this manner, but Arnold testified that he would have consented if consulted. Snortland was not aware of the sale until he received a check for his one-third share from the association. Snortland had trucks and storage space available for his share of the crop, and the market price of wheat on August 16, 1973, was above that contracted for on May 25, 1973.
The terms of the lease made no mention as to what the condition of the land should be upon termination of the lease. Testimony demonstrated that local custom required a return of the land in the condition it was in at the inception of the lease. Snortland testified that he was advised by Arnold Getschel that the land was entirely black when the Olsonawskis took possession under the lease. It is apparent that Snortland took this to mean that the land was entirely plowed black, as the complaint on this issue states that the defendant 'returned the premises to plaintiff with only a small portion of the Fall plowing done' and the relief requested includes a judgment for 'the cost of Fall plowing.'
Arnold Getschel was called as a witness by Snortland and testified that he had 'one-wayed' all of the premises except about 43 acres and that the northwest 80 and the southwest 80 were plowed at the time the Olsonawskis took possession of the land. 1
It is undisputed that half of the land, approximately 160 acres, was plowed black when the Olsonawskis relinquished it to Snortland in the fall of 1973.
The sole issue before this court is:
Was plaintiff-appellant's evidence at trial sufficient to create a jury issue?
We agree with the trial court that the question must be answered in the negative.
Where a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Flavin v. Totino's Finer Food
-
Collins v. Johnson
...verdict as manifestly against the evidence or where it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case. Snortland v. Olsonawski, 307 Minn. 116, 119, 238 N.W.2d 215, 217 (1976). The trial court determined that the evidence was insufficient to present a jury question on the issue of fraud......
-
Summa Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
...the transferee of a lessor, had an affirmative duty to bring home to Mobil notice of the transfer of the lease. Snortland v. Olsonawski, 307 Minn. 116, 238 N.W.2d 215 (1976); Pillsbury Inv. Co. v. Otto, 242 Minn. 432, 65 N.W.2d 913 (1954). Summa asserts that such notice can be inferred from......
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. First Western Savings Ass'n
...Until this is done, the obligation of the lessee to perform his covenants does not extend to the transferee. Snortland v. Olsonawski, 307 Minn. 116, 238 N.W.2d 215 (1976); Pillsbury Inv. Co. v. Otto, 242 Minn. 432, 65 N.W.2d 913 (1954); cf. American Oil Co. v. Rasar, 203 Tenn. 37, 308 S.W.2......