State v. Burwell
| Decision Date | 30 June 1869 |
| Citation | 63 N.C. 661 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. HENRY BURWELL and others. |
Where alandlord, whilst engaged in collecting his advancements, out of a cropin a field, that, by agreement with the cropper, was to remain his “till he was reimbursed,” on being assaulted by the latter with a deadly weapon, knocked him down with a stick, Held, that he was not thereby guilty of an assault and battery.
An agreement by him who cultivates land that the owner who advances “guano, seed-wheat,” &c., shall out of the crop be repaid in wheat for such advancements, constitutes the former a cropper, and not a tenant.
( Denton v. Strickland 3 Jon. 71 and Lewis v. Wilkins Phil. Eq. 303, cited and approved.)
ASSAULT AND BATTERY, tried before Watts, J., at GRANVILLE, Spring Term 1869.
On the part of the State, one Boyd, the prosecutor, testified that in 1867 he rented a piece of land from the defendant Burwell for the purpose of raising a crop of wheat; that the “ bargain” was that Burwell was to furnish a certain quantity, of guano, and seed wheat, and the land; that he (Boyd) was to sow, reap and gather the wheat, and that out of the crop Burwell was first to have the value in wheat, of the guano and seed furnished by him, and the remainder was to be divided between them in the proportions respectively of 1/4 and 3/4. He further stated that Burwell came on a certain Friday to his house making enquiries as to the wheat then being threshed; that Burwell came again on the following Saturday, when he (Boyd) declined threshing any more wheat 'till Monday--that thereupon Burwell proposed to thresh the balance himself which Boyd declined--that Burwell then attempted to carry his wagon into the field, in which attempt Burwell committed on him Boyd the assault &c., complained of. That subsequently Burwell went into the the field, threshed the remaining wheat and carried off his share.
Upon his cross examination Boyd stated that Burwell was first to take out of the crop raised on the field the value of his advancements in guano and wheat, “if it took all the crop.”
On the part of the defendant, Thos. Parham testified that he went with Burwell to Boyd's on the Friday and Saturday spoken of by the latter; that Boyd was threshing the wheat; that there was some difficulty between Boyd and Burwell as to the division of the wheat, when the latter offered the former $95 to settle the matter, which Boyd declined; that Burwell then started his wagon into the field, when Boyd threatened to kill or cut the horses and wagon, and injure them driving, that he [Boyd] cut at Burwell several times with an axe, that the latter finally struck Boyd with a stick, from the effect of which blow Boyd fell; that Boyd's sons participated in the fight, and by one of them Burwell was severely stricken with a hoe.
Defendant also introduced one Short, who testified that Burwell the defendant stated to him that the bargain as between himself and Boyd was that he Burwell was to furnish a quantity of guano and seed wheat and the land, and that the crop made on the land was to be his [Burwell's] till he was reimbursed for his advancements &c. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mabe v. Montague, No. COA04-218 (NC 7/5/2005)
... ... Defendant argues plaintiff is not a tenant, but rather a cropper who is entitled to notice to vacate the land. See State v. Burwell, 63 N.C. 661, ___ S.E. ___ (1869) (Cropper is one who is compensated by retaining a portion of the cultivated crops). We disagree. "If the ... ...
-
State v. Austin
... ... The landlord must divide off to the cropper his share. In short, he is a laborer receiving pay in a share of the crop. McNeeley v. Hart, 32 N. C. 63; Brazier v. Ansley, 33 N. C. 12." As against a cropper, the landlord always had the right to have possession of the crop. State v. Burwell, 63 N. C. 661. But it has now become immaterial whether the producer of the crop is a cropper or a tenant, under Code, 1754, which provides that "any and all crops raised on land, " whether by a tenant or cropper (in the absence of an agreement to the contrary), "shall be deemed and held to ... ...
-
State v. Austin
... ... must divide off to the cropper his share. In short, he is a ... laborer receiving pay in a share of the crop. McNeeley v ... Hart, 32 N.C. 63; Brazier v. Ansley, 33 N.C. 12." ... As against a cropper, the landlord always had the right to ... have possession of the crop. State v. Burwell, 63 ... N.C. 661. But it has now become immaterial whether the ... producer of the crop is a cropper or a tenant, under Code, § ... 1754, which provides that "any and all crops raised on ... land," whether by a tenant or cropper (in the absence of ... an agreement to the contrary), "shall be ... ...
-
Nelson v. Blue
... ... Chesson, 6 Jon. Eq. 146, and Skinner v. Wynne, 2 Jon. Eq. 41.)(Final decree of distribution postponed, owing to the state of the record, and the lapse of time since the bill was filed.)BILL, filed in 1857 and transmitted to this Court at [63 N.C. 660]Fall Term 1867 of ... ...