State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clevenger

• Decision Date: 04 September 1906
• Citation: 87 P. 583,17 Okla. 49,1906 OK 40
• Parties: STATE MUT. INS. CO. v. CLEVENGER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

87 P. 583

17 Okla. 49, 1906 OK 40

STATE MUT. INS. CO. v. CLEVENGER.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 4, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the language of an act of the Legislature is dubious, the court, in construing it, will consider the reason and intent of the law, to determine its scope and true meaning.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Statutes, § 259.]

The word "crop" in its broadest signification, means the products of the soil which are grown and raised annually and gathered during a single season.

The words "other crops" as used in section 5, art. 1, Sess. Laws 1899, which provides that "the association may insure grain in bins and stacks, growing wheat, rye barley, flax, oats, and other crops," etc., include growing cotton.

Error from Probate Court, Washita County; Richard A. Billups, Judge.

Action by the State Mutual Insurance Company against E. O. Clevenger. Demurrer to petition overruled, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

This was an action brought by the State Mutual Insurance Company against E. O. Clevenger, to recover on a note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff on June 7, 1904. The note was given for premium on insurance against hail upon a growing crop of cotton. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the plaintiff's cause of action, which demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff declining to plead further, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant for the costs of the action. The plaintiff appeals.

J. A. Duff and Massingale & Shean, for plaintiff in error.

James W. Smith and T. A. Edwards, for defendant in error.

HAINER J.

But one question is presented for our consideration, and that is the construction of section 5, art. 1, c. 17, p. 176, Sess. Laws 1899, which provides that: "The association may insure grain in bins and stacks, growing wheat, rye, barley, flax oats, and other crops. ***" It is contended by defendant in error that the words "other crops" do not include growing cotton, and that hence the plaintiff did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the demurrer was therefore rightfully sustained. The decision of this question, then, depends upon the interpretation to be placed upon the words "other crops" as used in this section of the act. The word "crop" has a broad and comprehensive meaning. We think the clear intent and purpose of the act was to include growing cotton, and all annual products of the soil. The court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that the growing of cotton is one of the leading, and one of the most lucrative, agricultural pursuits of the people of Oklahoma, and it seems to us that it would be placing a very narrow construction upon the statute, to hold that the words "other crops" do not include cotton. One of the best definitions we have been able to find of the word "crop" is contained in Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, vol. 8, p. 302, where the word is defined as follows: "The word 'crop,' in its general signification, means the product of cultivated plants while growing, or that product after it has been harvested or severed from the stalk or root to which it was attached." In Cottle v. Spitzer (Cal.) 4 Pac. 435, the Supreme Court of California quoted with approval the following language of the Superior Court, in construing the term "growing crops." "*** We proceed to inquire the meaning of the term 'growing crops,' as...