Case Name: WALTER CLIVER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ALEXANDER HARRIS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1916-11-20
Citations: 89 N.J.L. 667
Docket Number: 
Parties: WALTER CLIVER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ALEXANDER HARRIS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
WALTER CLIVER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ALEXANDER HARRIS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued June 26, 1916
Decided November 20, 1916.
A party who purchases a crop of grain can acquire no better or different title thereto than the seller had at the time of the sale.
On appeal from the Burlington Circuit Court.
For the appellant, V. Claude Palmer.
For the respondent, James Mercer Davis.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court ivas delivered by
Kalisch, J.
This case was tried together with the case of Emma O'Leary, administratrix, against the same defendant, at the Burlington Circuit, and a verdict was directed for the defendant.
The plaintiff's action was for trover and conversion against the defendant to recover the value of twenty acres of growing grain which the plaintiff bought from Mrs. O'Leary in March,, 1915, and which crop of grain the defendant, in July, 1915, refused to let the plaintiff reap, and appropriated the same to his own use.
The facts are fully set forth in an opinion filed, in the case of Emma O'Leary, Administratrix, v. Alexander Harris, post p. 671, at the present term of court, and in which case we reached the conclusion that Mrs. O'Leary had no title to the crop of grain.
In the case sub j-udice the plaintiff's right to a recovery depended solely upon the title of Mrs. O'Leary to the grain, since the plaintiff claimed to have bought the crop of grain from her, and as she had no title thereto, of course, the plaintiff could not have acquired any by such purchase, and hence the verdict in favor of the defendant was properly directed.
The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.