Stebbins v. Demorest

• Decision Date: 29 November 1904
• Citation: 138 Mich. 297,101 N.W. 528
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: STEBBINS v. DEMOREST.

101 N.W. 528

138 Mich. 297

STEBBINS v. DEMOREST.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 29, 1904

Error to Circuit Court, Shiawassee County; Stearns F. Smith, Judge.

Action of trover by John C. Stebbins against John Demorest. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

A. G. Shepard, for appellant.

Walsh &amp Pardee, for appellee.

HOOKER J.

One Mrs. Murphy, being the owner of a farm, leased the same upon shares to Stebbins by an instrument in writing. This instrument was signed by both parties, and contained their respective agreements in relation to the use of the place the furnishing of seed, division of crops, etc.; but it seems to have contained the essential elements of a lease, giving the right to exclusive possession, except as limited by the following provision: 'And first party reserves the wheat fields now in wheat, from the operation of this lease until harvested, and the right to go on and harvest the same next season.' Stebbins took possession under the lease. At the time the lease was made, the wheat fields mentioned had a growing crop upon them, sown by the defendant as a cropper by authority of Mrs. Murphy. This wheat turned out poorly and defendant, being of the opinion that portions of it were not worth harvesting, desired to sow oats upon the ground. He had conversations with Mrs. Murphy and the plaintiff. The former was in doubt regarding her right to authorize it, while the former denied it and refused to allow the defendant to do so, and they were unable to come to any agreement about it. Defendant sowed the oats, however. Plaintiff testified that they were sown without his knowledge, and that he forbade defendant harvesting them. He did harvest them, however; doing the work and drawing them away upon Sunday, to avoid the service of any process to prevent it. Subsequently he drew one-third of the oats to Mrs. Murphy, as her share; that being the aliquot part of the wheat that was her due under the original cropping arrangement. The plaintiff thereupon brought an action of trover for the conversion of the oats before a justice of the peace, and obtained a judgment, from which the defendant appealed. Upon the trial at circuit, the judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed.

At the time of making the original contract for cropping, the defendant acquired only the right to sow and harvest wheat upon the premises. This gave him the...