The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1906-02-17

mis- VIII Interest Farmers - Judge
burke Renders an Important Decision
a case OF much interest to farmers generally
was decided by Judge Burke in the Circuit
court at Towson last Saturday, when ne hand
60 Gown an opinion giving Mr.. John w. Bowen
the crop of wheat be had planted on the place
ne rented from Mr.. Charles g. Carmine, in the
Sd district.
In the spring of 1901 Mr.. Bowen rented the
farm under a written contract for three years
a. me annual rental OF SOY, OF which S4OO was
TO De paid in cash and $500 to be spent on the
place in fertilizer The contract required that
the tenant should observe the proper rotation
OF crops and that be should SOW timothy seed
10 the fall In the summer OF 1913, after mar.
vest Mr. Bowen plowed and prepared the soil
for 20 acres of wheat and sowed with 1t the re-
quisite amount of timothy seed. His landlord,
just before the LIST of September OF that year,
gave him notice to quit the place at the expl-
ration of bis term, March LIST, 1904.
Mr.. Bowen put in the CROP rendered up
possession of the place and paid his rent on
March let, 1904, after which be was notlned Dy
the landlord that he could not reap the wheat
crop nor come upon the place. When the
wheat was ready for harvest Mr.. Bowen went
to see the landlord and told him the crop was
ready to harvest and he intended to save u;
he was warned not to come on the place, ana
through Mr.. Frank l. Duncan, as ms linen a. az
torney, secured an injunction restraining the
landlord from interfering with him IN harvest
ing and thrashing his crop.
The case had been on hand for over year.
When Mr.. Duncan went on the Dencn MI:
Bowen employed Messrs q. Howard Isaac and
Ernest G. Hatch to finish the testimony and
argue the case. The defendant was represent
ed by Col. D. G. Mcintosh, Major John l. Yet
lott and Mr.. Jacob j. III. Mitnick.
In making the injunction permanent Judge
Burke settled question which has never been
directly decided before, it is said. In his opin-
ion be said:
"It is true that, according to the strictness of
the common law, if lessee for years or other
term certain had seeded the land and his term
had expired before the crop was ripe he could
not return and reap it and take it away. Inc
reason of this rule was said to be that it was
the tenants own folly to SOW under such CIR
cpmstances. But where the reason of the rule
eeases the rule itself becomes inapplicable.
Where the contract of rental recognizes the
tenahts right to sow crop whlcn Dotn iano,
lord Ind tenant knew would not ripen until
after tie term had EXPIRED different rule ap-
plies. In ouch cases the law gives the tenant
the right to return and take the crop. In this
case ths agreement provides that the said
Bowen sgrees to farm the fields in rotation IN
a proper manner
1.-The Evidence shows beyond dispute that to
comply With this provision of the contract
Bowen was authorized, and it may be said he
was required, to SOW the crop of wheat and rye
in question in the fall of 1903 This stipula
ton Of ihelf. in my opinion, amounts to
covenant hat Bowen should enter and reap
this crop when it ripened in the summer Of
1904. To give it the construction contended
for by the defendant would be to suppose that
it was intended by the parties that Bowen
should expnd the great amount of time and
labor required to prepare the ground and SOW
the crop forth sole and exclusive benefit OF
his landlord. a supposition, it seems to me, too
unreasonableto be seriously maintained"