Case ID: ind_84/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Woods, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 9376.
    Hisey v. Troutman.
    Landlobd and Tenant. — Lease.— Parol Reservation of Crops. — There may be a valid parol reservation of the landlord’s share of growing- wheat from a written lease under'which the lessee is to have possession of the land before the maturity of the crop.
    
      Pleading. — Practice.—Demurrer.—It is not cause for demurrer that a pleading is argumentative.
    From the Harrison Circuit Court.
    
      S. M. Stoolcslager and _B. P. Douglass, for appellant.
    
      W. N. Traceioell and P. J. Tracewell, for ajipellee.
   Woods, J.

Action’of replevin. The question in the case is whether there may be a parol reservation of the landlord’s share in growing wheat from a written lease of the land which takes effect, and under which the lessee takes possession, before the maturity of the crop. This court has held that the grantor, in a deed in fee, may avail himself of a parol reservation of growing crops. This conceded, there can be no reason in principle for not applying the same rule to a lease for a term of years. (

The question in this case arises upon the ruling of the court upon a demurrer to the reply; and counsel insist that the reply is argumentative, and therefore demurrable. It is not cause for demurrer that the pleading is argumentative. Stoddard v. Johnson, 75 Ind. 20; Nicholson v. Caress, 76 Ind. 24; Judah v. Trustees, etc., 23 Ind. 272.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and with instructions to overrule the demurrer to the reply.