Williams v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 28 July 1896
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. ROGERS.

68 N.W. 240

110 Mich. 418

WILLIAMS v. ROGERS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 28, 1896

Error to circuit court, Hillsdale county; Victor H. Lane, Judge.

Action by John B. Williams against Eli B. Rogers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

F. A. Lyon, for appellant.

S. D Bishopp and S. F. Dwight, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment on a claim of balance due arising out of transactions between the parties while plaintiff was an occupant of defendant's farm. Testimony on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that he entered into possession of the defendant's farm on the 27th of January, 1891, and continued to occupy it until March, 1892; that when he went into possession he expected to make a lease at once, upon terms which had been substantially agreed upon, but not reduced to writing, but that, after moving upon the farm, the defendant suggested that the lease be made to commence March 1st, which was done. In the meantime the plaintiff did the chores, fed the stock, milked the cows, and took charge of defendant's milk wagon, and delivered milk to customers in the city of Hillsdale. These services he seeks to recover for. On or about the 1st of March a written agreement for the future occupancy of the premises was entered into, the material portions of which are as follows: "The party of the first part [defendant] rents his farm to the second party [plaintiff] for the term of five years, with the privilege of terminating the contract at the close of any year by either party giving ninety days' notice in writing prior to the first of March in any of the said years. First party is to furnish with said farm one-half of all seed and grain, and pay one-half of the expenses necessary to carry on said farm except the team and man labor, and furnish cows and stock now on the farm, reserving the right to sell and dispose of the same, as both parties may deem best, at any time during the continuance of the lease. Second party is to do all the team labor and man labor and furnish the team, and do all the work in season, and in good, workmanlike manner. Second party is to furnish one-half of all seed and grain sown on said farm, and pay one-half the taxes assessed on said property and premises during the continuance of this lease, and to furnish all farm implements necessary to carry on said farm in a good, workmanlike manner. All stock, teams and other animals raised and kept on said farm to be kept on the undivided grain and produce. All stock, fowls, and other animals raised on said farm, and all grain and produce, in fact everything raised and grown on said farm, to belong to first and second parties, share and share alike; that is first party to have one-half and second party to have one-half. All stock, grain, and other property to be divided between first and second parties when both are present or represented. Both first and second parties are to have milk for family use out of the undivided milk." After the execution of this contract, plaintiff continued to deliver milk to the customers to whom milk had previously been delivered for defendant, and turned the money over to defendant, and he also charges in his account for the services in peddling this milk. The lease was terminated at the end of the first year, and plaintiff seeks to recover for his proportion of grain and other property left upon the farm; his right to the same having, as it is claimed, been denied by the defendant. The defendant contends in this court: First, that under the lease in question the parties became co-partners, and that suit at law does not lie to recover until there has been an accounting; second, that the circuit judge erred in permitting the plaintiff to recover for the wheat sown upon the land in 1890 and reaped in 1891 third, that under the evidence in the case the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for services rendered prior to the 1st of March, as it is claimed his own testimony shows that such services were rendered without any expectation of charging for them; fourth, that there was error in permitting plaintiff to recover for services in delivering defendant's share of the milk after March 1st fifth, that there was no evidence of a sufficient demand to show a conversion of the property by the defendant; and, sixth, that there was error in permitting a recovery on account of two calves that were left on the farm, and taken possession of by defenda...