Stavens v. Nat'l Elevator Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1917
• Parties: STAVENS v. NATIONAL ELEVATOR CO.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

36 N.D. 9

161 N.W. 558

STAVENS

v.NATIONAL ELEVATOR CO.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Jan. 20, 1917.

On Petition for Rehearing, March 3, 1917.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where an action properly triable to a jury is tried to the court without a jury, the findings of fact are presumed to be correct, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be clearly opposed to the preponderance of the evidence.

Where a cropper's contract reserves title to all crops in the landowner, until a division of such crops is made, and the lessee prior to such division sells and delivers to an innocent purchaser grain which would belong to such lessee as his share upon a division of such crops, and the owner of the land, basing his claim of ownership upon the reservation of title provided in the contract, sues the purchaser for conversion, the right of the parties to such action must be determined on equitable principles, and the landowner is entitled to recover such amount only as will compensate him for the amount of his actual interest in such grain.

Appeal from District Court, Traill County; Pollock, Judge.

Action by G. H. Stavens against the National Elevator Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. A. Lyche, of Hatton, and F. W. Ames, of Mayville, for appellant. H. A. Libby, of Grand Forks, for respondent.

CHRISTIANSON, J.

In his complaint plaintiff avers that he was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of certain grain; that defendant unlawfully converted the same to its own use, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $1,631.84. The answer denies all the allegations of the complaint.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff was the owner of certain lands in Traill county. In February, 1914, he entered into a contract with one Halland for the cropping of these premises during the years 1914, 1915, and 1916. The cropping contract, which was in writing, contained provisions to the effect that Halland agreed “not to sell or remove or suffer to be sold or removed any of the produce of said farm” without the written consent of Stavens until a division of such produce had been made, and that until such division the title to such produce remained in Stavens. The contract further provided that, upon Halland's compliance with the terms thereof, the produce should be equally divided between Stavens and Halland. In the fall of 1914 Halland hauled and delivered certain grain to the elevator of the defendant. It is undisputed that Stavens received the storage tickets representing his full one-half share of all crops grown on the premises, but he claims that no division was ever made, and that consequently under the stipulations of the contract he is the owner of the entire crop, and entitled to recover the value of the one-half share thereof which would eventually belong to Halland when a division was made. Halland testified that he hauled his share of the grain in order to pay threshing bills, labor bills, and other bills incurred by him in the production of the crop, that he informed plaintiff, Stavens, of this fact, and that Stavens made no objection thereto. This, however, is denied by Stavens.

A jury was waived. The cause was tried to a court, and resulted in findings and conclusions in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered in accordance with such findings and conclusions, and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

[1] The court found, among other things, that the defendant purchased the grain in ordinary course of business without notice of knowledge of plaintiff's claim thereto, that plaintiff made no demand for the return of the grain prior to the commencement of the action, and that plaintiff failed to prove that Halland did not have the full equitable title to the grain at the time of its purchase, with the mere naked...