Case Name: J. H. LEE v. A. J. MELTON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1917-03-07
Citations: 173 N.C. 704
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. H. LEE v. A. J. MELTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 173
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
J. H. LEE v. A. J. MELTON.
(Filed 7 March, 1917.)
Landlord and Tenant — Sale of Crop — Landlord’s Consent — Contracts.
In. an action against a tenant to recover damages for his failure to deliver a crop under his contract of sale, the defense that the tenant had not settled with his landlord, and that the contract was therefore illegal, is not available, when it is shown that the landlord had consented to the sale and had thereafter taken possession of the crop at the tenant’s request.
Civil ACTION, tried before Daniels, J., at October Term, 1916, of HERTFORD.
This is an action to recover $30.22 damages for failure to deliver certain peanuts according to contract.
Tbe action was beard in tbe Superior Court on appeal from a justice of-tbe peace, and tbe plaintiff was there awarded $6.95 damages, and tbe defendant appealed.
It was in evidence tbat tbe defendant was a tenant of one Weaver at tbe time tbe contract of sale was made, and tbat tbe peanuts were raised on tbe land of Weaver.
No counsel for plaintiff,
Boswell G. Bridger for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Tbe principal exception relied on by tbe defendant is to tbe refusal of bis Honor to charge tbe jury tbat tbe plaintiff could not recover because of tbe illegality of tbe contract, in tbat the defendant was a tenant and bad not settled with bis landlord and bad no right to sell or remove tbe peanuts.
We find, however, tbat bis Honor gave tbe defendant tbe full benefit of tbe principle for which be contends.
He charged the jury, among other things, as follows:
"Ordinarily a tenant has no right to sell any part of tbe crop until be has paid bis rents and advances; and a person making a contract with him to buy, knowing tbat be is a tenant and knowing that rents and advances bad not been paid, could not enforce such a contract. Tbe contention of tbe plaintiff is tbat tbe landlord consented tbat tbe tenant should deal with those peanuts.
"Tbe plaintiff contends tbat tbe landlord consented; tbat be bad been bis tenant for some years, and had been in tbe habit of selling tbe peanut crop, and tbis year be was selling tbe peanuts just as be bad been doing before, and tbe landlord says be made no objection, and tbe reason tbe landlord took charge was because tbe tenant asked bim.
"If you are satisfied from tbe testimony and by its greater weight that tbe tenant bad tbe consent of tbe landlord to sell tbe peanuts, then you are to disregard their relations as landlord and tenant."
There was evidence tending to prove that tbe landlord bad given bis consent to tbe sale by tbe defendant, and it was only upon tbis view of tbe case that bis Honor permitted tbe recovery by tbe plaintiff.
There is
No error.