Case ID: johns_10/html/0364-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Whitmarsh against Cutting.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1813.
    A. leased to land I'or^one íoth endorsement^ on the lease,
    and B^soweii with v;heí¡f and in May, iedúnder°ttie entigf and déja'neri it was was ’not en-crop! ^he* cnUtiecHo the emblements, miration of" fixed jmüTpepü «na.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Whitmarsk brought an action of trespass quare clausumfregit against Cutting, f entering his close and carrying away a quantity of wheat and The defendant pleaded not guilty; and there was a trial by jury. The plaintiff proved that, in August, 1812, the defendant entered his close and took and carried away the wheat, &c.
    The defendant then proved that the wheat and rye had been constable, on an execution against one Hilton, and that the defendant assisted the constable in carrying the grain y- The defendant offered Hilton as a witness to prove that *6 grain belonged to Hilton, who was objected to, as interested, but admitted by the justice. Hilton testified that he entered on the premises in April, 1810, under a lease from the owner of the for one year from the 20th April, 1810; and on the 10th 1810, the owner, by endorsement on the lease, agreed to let Hilton have the farm for another year; it was admitted that the plaintiff was lessee of the owner, and that in May, 1812, Hilton was 0usied wder the act against forcible entry and detainer. The ~ra~n was sown by Hilton, but reaped and gathered by the p1ain~ tiff, after his entry in .lJIay, 1812.
    The question submitted to the jury was, whether he was entitled to the grain as emblements. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The verdict was clearly against law. The crop sown did not belong to Hilton, but to his successor. This lease was for a year certain, and then renewed for the next year 5 and it was his folly to sow when he knew that his term would expire before he could reap. The doctrine of emblements is founded entirely on the uncertainty of the termination of the tenant’s estate. Where that is certain there exists no title to emblements. Without touching any other points, we are of opinion that the verdict was against law and evidence, and that the judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.