Strangeway v. Eisenman

• Decision Date: 27 May 1897
• Docket Number: Nos. 10,535 - (154).,s. 10,535 - (154).
• Citation: 68 Minn. 395
• Parties: JOHN STRANGEWAY v. JOHN R. EISENMAN.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 395

JOHN STRANGEWAY v. JOHN R. EISENMAN.¹

Nos. 10,535 - (154).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 27, 1897.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Olmsted county, Gould, J., refusing a new trial. Affirmed.

Thomas Spillane, for appellant.

H. A. Eckholdt, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to recover possession of a number of stacks of grain, a quantity of timothy in the shock, and 10 acres of standing corn, being all the crops sown and grown, and then situated, in 1896, on a farm owned by the plaintiff.

In 1894 the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract, Exhibit A of the record, for the cultivation by the latter of the farm on shares for a term of years. The material terms of this contract were as follows: The defendant was to till and farm the land in the usual course of husbandry, and was to plant it in such crops as the plaintiff should direct; provided, however, that at least 25 acres should be planted in corn each year, one-half of which was to be cut up for feed for the stock on the premises; the other half to be cribbed thereon. The plaintiff was to furnish all the seed to sow or plant the land, and pay one-half the cost of threshing the grain. The defendant was to furnish all teams, implements, and labor necessary to cultivate the farm, and to harvest, thresh, and secure the crops, and, after taking off the crops, plow as much land for the succeeding crop as was plowed at the time he took possession thereof; keep the buildings, fences, etc., in good repair, the plaintiff to furnish the material therefor. The defendant was not to remove any manure from the farm, but to put it on the land each fall; also, to work out the road tax on the land each year. He was not to sell or remove any of the stock or products of the farm from the premises, until a division thereof, without the written consent of the plaintiff, and until such division the title and possession of all crops and stock on the premises to be and remain in the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was to have the right to take and hold enough of the stock and crops which would, on division of the same, belong to the defendant, to repay any advances made to him by the plaintiff, and any indebtedness due from him to the plaintiff. In case the defendant failed to perform any of the terms of the contract, the plaintiff was to have the right to enter upon the premises and take full and absolute possession of the same, and perform all things which defendant had agreed to do, but which remained undone, and retain enough of the crops that would otherwise belong to the defendant, if he had fulfilled his contract, to pay the costs and expense of plaintiff in performing what defendant ought to have done, and the residue, if any, should belong to the defendant. In consideration of defendant's performance of all the terms of the contract to be by him performed, the plaintiff, upon reasonable request thereafter made, was to give and deliver to the defendant on the farm one-half of all grain, hay, and other crops raised on the farm each year.

It was further agreed that the plaintiff should sell to the defendant one-half of the cows and certain other stock then on the farm; each of the parties thereafter to own one equal half of such stock and the increase thereof; each to furnish one-half the feed for the same. Defendant was to husk all the corn each year; also, to deliver plaintiff's share of the fruit and eggs at his residence in Rochester. Defendant was to deliver the milk of the cows on the farm at the nearest separator, and settle therefor with plaintiff for his share at the end of each month. Defendant was to take possession of the farm at any time after the harvest of 1894, but not later than the first week in October. The plaintiff reserved the right to have the plow land plowed the last season of the contract immediately after the grain was cut.

In August, 1896, before the term of this contract had expired, and before the work of harvesting, threshing, and securing the crops of that season was completed, the grain being in stack or shock on the...