State v. Ewing
| Decision Date | 07 April 1891 |
| Citation | 13 S.E. 10,108 N.C. 755 |
| Parties | State v. Ewing et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Landlord and Tenant—Unlawful Seizure of Crops—Appeal— Special Verdict.
1. Code N. C. § 1754, provides that crops on land leased for agricultural purposes shall be deemed in possession of the lessor until all rents are paid. Section 1755 gives the lessee a civil remedy, if the lessor obtains actual possession otherwise than as mentioned in the preceding section. Section 1759 makes it a misdemeanor for the lessor to unlawfully and knowingly seize the crop when there is nothing due him. Section 1762 extends these provisions to leases of turpentine trees. Held, that a lessor, who, after receiving all rent due, forbade the lessee to gather part of his crop, and leased the trees to others before the first lease terminated, and allowed them to take the balance of the crop, was guilty of a misdemeanor under section 1759.
2. Where the jury renders a special verdict on the facts, and the court enters a verdict "not guilty" thereon, the state may appeal.
Appeal from superior court, Montgomery county; Bynum, Judge.
Indictment under Code N. C. § 1759, for unlawfully seizing a tenant's crop of turpentine.
The Attorney General, for the State.
Petriberton & Jerome, Batchelor & Dev, erenx, and J. C. Black, for appellees.
The statute (Code, § 1754) prescribes that "when lands shall be rented or leased by agreement, written or oral, for agricultural purposes, or shall be cultivated by a cropper, unless otherwise agreed between the parties to the lease or agreement, any and all crops raised on said lands shall be deemed and held to be vested in possession of the lessor or his assigns at all times until the rents for said lands shall be paid, and until all the stipulations contained in the lease or agreement shall be performed, " etc., and it further gives the landlord and his assigns a civil remedy prescribed in case the lessee, cropper, or the assigns of either of them "shall remove the crop, or any part thereof, from the lands without the consent of the lessor or his assigns, " etc. The same statute (Code, § 1755) gives the lessee or cropper, or the assigns of either, a like civil remedy against the lessor or his assigns in case he or they "shall get the actual possession of the crop, or any part thereof, otherwise than by the mode prescribed in the preceding section, " etc., and refuse upon notice"to make a fair division of said crop, or to pay over to such lessee or cropper, or the assigns of either, such part thereof as he may be entitled to under the lease or agreement, " etc. These and other statutory provisions extend to leases of turpentine trees. Id. § 1762. The purpose of the same statute, (Id. § 1759,) which makes it a misdemeanor on the part of the lessee or cropper, or the assigns of either, to remove the crop or any part thereof without the consent of the lessor or his assigns, etc., and likewise on the part of the landlord to " unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and without process of law, and unjustly, seize the crop of his tenant when there is nothing due him, " etc., is to render the statutory provisions and regulations above referred to more effective, and this penal provision must be interpreted in that light and with that view. It embraces both the landlord and the tenant, and intends the more effectually to secure their respective rights as prescribed.
It appears that the prosecutor had leased turpentine trees from the defendants, and made the crop, but had not gathered the whole thereof; that his term of lease was not over, but he was out of the actual possession of the trees and the land on which they were situate; that he had paid the defendants all the rents due them, and owed them nothing for advancements or expenses; that he sent his servants back to gather and remove the remaining un-gathered part of the crop; that they went to do so, and the defendants forbade them to gather the crop so remaining, and accordingly they did not; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ellis, 1
...indeed that courts so frequently, no doubt by mere inadvertence, fail to observe the law in such respect. ' However, in State v. Ewing, 108 N.C. 755, 13 S.E. 10, it was held that where there is a special verdict, finding the material facts, no general verdict of guilt or innocence is necess......
-
State v. Gulledge
...v. Curtis, 71 N. C. 56. But defective as it is, the verdict is such as to warrant an appeal by the state. C. S. § 4649; State v. Ewing, 108 N. C. 755, 13 S. E. 10; State v. Robinson, 116 N. C. 1046, 21 S. E. 701; State v. Gillikin, 114 N. C. 832, 19 S. E. 152. Venire de ...
-
State v. Robinson
...but the entry upon such opinion of a verdict of not guilty worked no harm, and did not prevent the appeal by the state. State v. Ewing, 108 N.C. 755, 13 S.E. 10; v. Spray, 113 N.C. 686, 18 S.E. 700; State v. Gillikin, 114 N.C. 832, 19 S.E. 152. Upon the facts found by the special verdict, a......
-
State v. Spray
...verdict, and the court, on the facts found, adjudges defendant not guilty, no formal verdict of not guilty is necessary. State v. Ewing, 13 S. E. 10, 108 N. C. 755, followed. Appeal from superior court, Swain county; Boykin, Judge. Prosecution of N. W. Spray and others for disturbing a scho......