The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-03-16

Iron Store company that the mixing
OF the grain in the elevator, while the
title thereto was still in the landlord,
destroyed Its Identity, so that the ten
ant. Branum, never actually got title
to any part OF the grain which he had
mortgaged to the harvester company.
ana that therefore the mortgage OF the
harvester company was void.
1t was the contention Of the Har-
vester company that the tenant,
Branum, acquired a vested interest in
the crop to which the mortgage at
tached and that Ahe division of the
storage tickets was a division of the
grain itself, and that, therefore, the
chattel mortgage being given long
prior to the attaching of the garnish-
ment lien. should have precedence in
law.
The District Court of Benson Coun-
ty decided in favor Of the Minneapolis
Iron Store company as garnishee and
against the Harvester company as
chattel mortgage.
The Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the District Court and the
case is remanded to the District Court
for further proceedings in harmony
with the opinion Of the Supreme Court
In the opinion written and filed in
the case. the court said:
The question here presented for
consideration is the one which has con-
tinually presented much difficulty and
about which there has been a great
uncertainty every since the pioneer de-
cision concerning this question, found
in the case of Angel VS.. Egger 6 ND,
PIP. 391. Prior to the time of this de-
cision in this state, wherever one had
leased land from another for a year
or term Of years. the one, the owner
Of the land, was termed the landlord,
and the other one who leased the land
was called tenant, and all their rela-
lions were fixed and governed by the
old settled rules concerning landlord
and tenant: but at the time when the
decision in the Angel VS.. Egger case
was written by this court. it had be-
come quite common to insert in such
contracts regarding the leasing of
lands, a provision providing that the
title and possession Of all crops raised
upon land under such contracts, should
remain in the landlord until division,
and the court in constituting this kind
of contract in the Angel VS.. Egger
case. held that such contracts were not
governed by the laws of landlord and
tenant, but were governed and would
be construed by the law governing the
relations of master and servant, and
from the time Of this decision there
has been an eternal and never ceasing
conflict between the laws governing
relations Of landlord and tenant and
the laws governing the relations of
master and servant. Each of said
branches of law commended for
and privilege Of governing
the relations between the owners of
the land and the tenant of it under
such contract, as has been mentioned.
I'VE can also say that in the Angel
VS.. Egger case, the decision seems to
be contradictory in its various portions
and parts and is self conflicting, and
we are satisfied it placed wrong con-
uponethe provisions as to title
and possession of the crops in the land
lord, in such leases as have usually
been the subject Of discussion in all Of
the states. The multiplicity of suits
which have arisen since the decision
in Angel VS.. Egger, demonstrates that
such decision has really never been
accepted as the law of this state. We
may further say. that relation Of land
lord and tenant is growing more i'm
portant in every year Of our history.
The census of the United States
shows that approximately fifty per cent
Of tillable land is occupied by tenants.
Tenancy is increasing. Each year
more and more Of the land, by reason
of various causes, is passing out Of the
hands OF owners, and such former own
ers Joins the army of tenants. The
land is actually accommodating more and
more into fewer hands and the class
known as tenants. are RAPIDLY increas-
ing and the law of landlord and tenant
is essentially growing in importance.
Tillable lands are not of much value
unless labor is applied to them to make
them produces. crops. Therefore, the
tenant is at least as important person
as the landlord is, and his rights should
be just as securely protected. Often
times the tenant has nothing with
which to support his family except the
crop which he contemplates sowing, or
Is about to SOW. If his interest in such
crops could be mortgaged he could
obtain possibly sufficient credit to tide
himself over until the maturity Of the
crop, but unless he can do %, his fam
ly may suffer for the very necessaries
Of life because he has been held to have
no mortgageable interest In such crops;
Or IL he is mere servant OF the land |
ord, merchants and others can extend |
him no credit for the reason that they |
sould not get security, and thus the |
.enant and his family are compelled to |
Undergo great hardships and depriva- |
ions for the reason that the courts |
lave said under such terms as we are |
he is nothing but a servant. |
The greatness of state or nation |
depends largely upon the strength, in
diligence and morality of its citizens
md in the security OF their rights and
privileges. A nation or state is made
I'D Of families. The family is the unit,
he multiplication of which produces
he state and nation. and the poor ten
int who is struggling along under the
Ldversities of life, trying to properly |
'aise large family, is just as impor-
ant an element in the final strength
# the state or nation, even thought
lis struggle is fierce to acquire the
Of life for himself and fam
ly, as. is the citizen OF great wealth
Ind opportunity who may be the owner
# many farms. and who in many re-
Ipects may have been more fortunate,
ubjected to less adversities. and had
,reater opportunity and may have been
Dorn with more greater intellectually.
government whether state or national,
hould have largely for its aim the pro-
~@~~-~@-~0~.@e1&~-~~- ~S@.~~As~~~-~~~~-~S~
ARnnAF Of FnhaAAlna