Case ID: scl_4/html/0437-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bay, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1810.
    The State v. Hogan and others.
    It was held that an administrator, having a right to gather in the crop standing in a field planted by his intestate, may oppose, by force, any one yvho shall interrupt him in the free exercise of that right: — If such person, so interrupting the administrator, claims the right of taking the crop, as purchaser of the land at sheriffs, sale, under an execution against a former proprietor of the land, who had granted the same to the intestate. And an indictment is maintainable by such administrator against those who’ shall molest him forcibly.
    Motion for a new trial. Defendants were convicted upon an indictment for a riot, and assault, in entering the plantation of the prosecutor, and violently disturbing him in his possession. Defendants found guilty of assault only. It appeared that the dispute was for the. possession of a tract of land, which belonged to one Rogers, and which, after Rogers’ death, the prosecutor, Manning, as his administrator, had taken possession of. Rogers, the intestate, planted the land; afterwards he put a woman in possession as his tenant, to hold against M’Daniel, who claimed as purchaser at sheriff’s sale, sold as Mannings’. After the death of Rogers, this woman betrayed her trust, and acknowledged herself the tenant of M’Daniel. Rogers purchased from Manning, the prosecutor. A judgment was obtained against Manning, and an execution of ji. fa. was thereupon issued, in virtue whereof the sheriff sold the land in question to M’Daniel as the property of Manning, the creditor alleging that the sale to Rogers was fraudulent. Manning having administered on Rogers’ estate, took possession of the land. The defendants entered, by authority of M’Daniel, and were in the act of gathering in the crop, which had been planted and reared on the' land by Rogers, when the prosecutor, Manning, came to prevent them, and to gather the crop as assets of Rogers’ es'ate.
    Ciumku, ,f., before whom the indictment was tried, charged the jury agamst the uyieuuaiiis, nod they were found guilty of an as-sank, in resisting tbit efforts, made by the prosecutor, idra .lUomptod to hinder Ibero from taking the crop, and from interrupting him in gathering the crop as administrator. *
    JNott, and Egan, for the defendants,
    contended that the guilt or innocence of the defendants, depended on the right of possession of the land. That, at the death of Rogers, the possession became vacant. The woman who was Rogers’ tenant at will, was confirmed in possession as tenant of M’D-iniel. That she being so in possession, the defendants were lawfully authorized to exercise ]Vf’Daniel’s right of possession, and that Manning having no title as administrator of Rogers, might be lawfully resisted. Cited 1 Johns. N. Y. Rep. 42. The sheriff’s deed to M’Duuiel was offered in evidence in mitigation, and rejected. The title of M’Daniel, and the right of the sheriff to sell, were not allowed to he given in evidence. The right of possession depended on the light of property. The title was necessary to be investigated, if defendants had the right, and were in possession, they might lawfully defend the posses-don. 1 Haw. P. C. ISO. 1 Bac. Abr., “Assault and Battery.” The party entitled to possession, may gain posses, sion by stratagem, though not by force. But after he is in pusses. Sion, he may employ force to defend his possession.
    Stark, Solicitor, contra.
    
    Crops growing on lands of an intestate are assets, and belong to the administrator. A. A. 1791. The administrator was bound to enter and take the emblements. The woman, who went into possession as tenant at will to Rogers, was not authorized to attorn to M’Daniel; her attornment was nugatory. The crop planted by Rogers, and growing thereon, was a legal possession of Rogers, continued after ins death for the benefit of his estate. A purchaser at sheriffs’ sale cannot take possession by force. He may take peaceable possession, or ihe sheriff may give him possession; hut if his possession is opposed, he must bring suit to obtain possession. Fraudulent practices, to obtain possession, ought to be discouraged.
   Mnyti, 1810.

Bay, J.,

delivered the opinion of tbe court. The right of property could not be in issue on the trial of the indictment, and therefore the evidence offered to prove that right was properly rejected. The right which Rogers had to take the crop he had raised, devolved on his administrator after his death. The land was sold as the property of Manning. The purchaser could acquire no greater estate, or interest, than Manning possessed, or was entitled to. Manning was not entitled to take the crop, which had b"en planted and reared by another, as his own. He was entitled to take it in autre droit, as administrator. If Rogers had survived, the crop' could not be taken from him by the purchaser of the land sold under execution as the, property of Manning, liis death cannot give the purchaser at sheriffs’ sale a right which he would not otherwise be entitled to. The administrator had a right to enter and take the crop, for the same was assets, for the collection and administration of which he was accountable. The crop growing, or standing, on the land, was sufficient evidence of Rogers’ possession during his life, and of the possession of his administrator, as soon as he qualified as administrator ; and the possession could not be divested, by any legal stratagem, until the season for gathering in the crop was entirely gone. ' The administrator was then in con. temptation of law in the possession oí the land, and it was unlawful in the defendants to interrupt, or disturb, that possession. The administrator had a right to hold possession of the. land until the crop was secured, and no other person could have the right of possession so as to interfere with this right oí the administrator, though another might have the right of property, and even the right of pos. session in all the land except that on which the crop was standing.

Note. Sse 4 Johns. 150, Hyatt v. Wood. A person having a possessory title to land, entered by force, and-ejected die mere possessor, ruled the latter could not maintain trespass. But such legal owner, forcibly entering, under color of title, is indictable /hr a breach of the peace. One in possession, and claiming title, may justify au assault and buttery in defence of his possession Cro. Car. 138. 7 T. ft. 431, Run. 60, 6t. fineutay have the interest in agrowing crop, and another the title to the land; but if ai.y portion of the crop belongs tu the owner of the land, the whole seems to belong to him 3 Johns 221 Co. Litt. 4. ST. ft. 335. 3 Burr. 1824. 4 Mass. T. Ü. 266. 5 Biun. 285.,

Motion rejected.