Case ID: wend_15/html/0379-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nelson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Caswell vs. Districh.
    An agreement to sow different kinds of grain upon a farm, and to yield a certain proportion of each crop to the landlord, is an agreement to work on shares, and not a lease to render rent for which an action will lie against the tenant.
    Error from the Monroe common pleas. The plaintiff as ‘executrix of D. Caswell, brought an action of assumpsit against Districh for the rent of certain premises. The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial, the plaintiff produced a written agreement between her testator and the defendant to the effect: that the testator had agreed to let the defendant have his farm for one year, and that Districh had agreed to sow oats and give the testator one third in the half bushel ;• corn, one third in the basket; to sovz three lots (particularly described) into wheat, and give the testator one third in the half bushel—the meadow* three cocks out of five, and the rest half delivered in the barn. The plaintiff proved the quantities of grain raised by the defendant, and rested. The defendant insisted that the instrument produced was an agreement to work the land on shares, and not a lease securing rent; that the parties therefore were tenants in common in the crops, and an action for the rent of the premises would not lie. Whereupon he moved for a nonsuit, which was granted by the court. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error.
    
      C. M. Lee, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Pratt, for defendant in error.
   By the Court,

Nelson, J.

The agreement between the parties was a letting of the premises upon shares, and, tecffnically speaking, was not a lease. 8 Johns. R. 151. 3 id. 221. 2 id. 421, n. 8 Cowen, 220. There is nothing which indicates that the stipulation for a portion of the crops was by way of rent; but the contrary. The shares were of the specific crops raised upon the farm. It is very material to the landlord, and no injury to the tenant, that this view of th"é contract should be maintained, unless otherwise clearly ex4 pressed, for then the landlord has an interest to the extent of his share in the crops. If it is deemed rent, the whole in- ' terest belongs to the tenant until a division. Where a farm is let for a year upon shares, the landlord looks to his interest in the crop as his security, and thereby is enabled to accommodate tenants', who otherwise would not be trusted for the rent.

This case is clearly distinguishable from that tif Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns. R. 108. There the court, from the correspondence between the phraseology of the instrument and the terms usual in leases in the reservation of rent, came tó the conclusion that the proportion of the crops specified' in the agreement was intended as payment of tent in kind, and that therefore the whole interest belonged to the tenant. If my conclusion be correct, then the parties Were tenants in ‘common in the ctops, and as. the plaintiff stood in the placé of her testator, she was not entitled t'd sustain her action, and 'the common pleas did right to grant a nonsuit.

Judgment’ affirmed.