Case Name: Hisey v. Troutman
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1882-05
Citations: 84 Ind. 115
Docket Number: No. 9376
Parties: Hisey v. Troutman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.