Case Name: Theodore D. Hadley, appellant, agt. Joseph Barton, respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-01
Citations: 47 How. Pr. 481
Docket Number: 
Parties: Theodore D. Hadley, appellant, agt. Joseph Barton, respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 481–488

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT.
Theodore D. Hadley, appellant, agt. Joseph Barton, respondent.
Agreement to raise crops on shames—tide of owner of the land to tenant's shame—as per agreement for advances made—sale and possession of premises to a third person.
Plaintiff, being the owner of a farm, in March or April, 1870, entered into an agreement with one C. to cultivate a certain portion of it on shares, plaintiff to retain the absolute title and possession of C.’s share of the crops raised, as security for certain advances made by the plaintiff.
On the 10th of June, 1870, after the crops had been sown and planted by C.—the plaintiff, in the meantime; having advanced to C. money to pay for seed, &c., in the whole to the sum of $280—the plaintiff sold the farm, by an executory contract, to one G., and delivered to G. the immediate possession, without any reservation or notice of C.’s interest therein.
C., having gone on, subsequent to the sale, and harvested and gathered the crops, sold his share (amounting to about $280) to the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that C. had no title to convey; that never having paid back to plaintiff the advances made to O., the title and possession of C.’s share was in the plaintiff, and therefore brought this action for conversion.
Held, that by the contract with G., the purchaser, without reservation, the plaintiff transferred to G. the immediate right of possession, and all the right to the crops then growing or thereafter to be planted and grown' and harvested; and thereby disengaged himself from performing any agreement with C. for cropping on their joint account, and necessarily abandoned that agreement, and was estopped from setting up any claim to the crops thereafter to be cultivated and harvested on the farm as against his vendee, G. The plaintiff* had clothed G. with the apparent and- also with the real title. The action could not be sustained.
E. Darwin Smith, J., dissenting. Holding, that the agreement which the plaintiff proved, and which the referee found to have been made between the parties in respect to working in common of the farm, did not involve or create any relative rights of tenants in common in respect to the crops.
General Term, Fourth Department,
January, 1874.
Parties can make an agreement for the cultivation, by one of them, of the land of another which does not, in legal effect, make them tenants in common, as between themselves in respect to the crops, and such an agreement the plaintiff made in this case with C.
By this agreement it was understood by both parties that the crops should belong to the plaintiff till his advances made to C. should be paid, and such advances were made on the faith and security of such agreement. This was at that time .the only way in which the plaintiff could secure himself for the advances made, and to be made, as there was nothing then upon which a chattel mortgage could operate, the crops not being in existence. The plaintiff testified that “ the defendant stipulated that I should have my pay out of the crops, and they should remain in my possession and be mine until my advances were paid.”
The plaintiff', therefore, had the title to the crops, and the whole title thereto as between him and 0., and they were not tenants in common in , such crops. The referee erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Judgment affirmed.
Mullin, P. J., Talcott and E. Darwin Smith, JJ.
In the forepart of 1870 the plaintiff was the owner of a farm, and on the -fourteenth,, of April in that year signed a note for one .Command to secure the purchase-price of a horse, under the verbal arrangement that the plaintiff should have the right to and the possession and ownership of Command’s share of the crops which he might raise that season on plaintiff’s farm until this and other advances should be paid. Under the same arrangement the plaintiff furnished seed and feed for teams to said Command until all of the advances amounted to the sum of $280.98. After making said agreement, and after said Command had put in all the corn, barley, &c., .and had set out one-third of the tobacco, the plaintiff agreed to sell his farm to one George by an executory contract which provided that possession should be given to the purchaser immediately, and that upon the payment of the purchase-money at a later day the premises should be conveyed to him. dSTo part of the plaintiff’s advances were ever paid. In the fall, after the tobacco was packed and ready for shipment, it was taken by Command, unbeknown to the plaintiff and sold to the defendant who paid for it as follows, one-half to said Command and one-half to said George. Shortly after the receipt of this money Command absconded.
The plaintiff upon learning that the tobacco had been sold to the defendant, demanded one-half thereof of him, and upon his refusal to deliver it or to pay for it, brought this action against him for the conversion of said tobacco.
The case was tried before a referee who reported in favor of the defendant and ordered the complaint dismissed, upon the ground, “ that by the arrangement between the plaintiff and said Command the plaintiff did not acquire title to the tobacco in question in this action.”
From the judgment entered upon such report this appeal - was brought.
Fuller & Vann, for appellant.
Gray & Costello and L. E. Warren, for respondent.

Opinion:
Talcott, J.
The plaintiff claims to have made a contract with John Command, in March or April, 1870, by which Command was to cultivate a certain portion of a farm, then belonging to the plaintiff, during the ensuing season, on shares, but that the plaintiff was to retain the absolute title to Command's share of the crops raised as security for certain advances. In the meantime Command had planted a small part of the tobacco in question in this suit. On the 10th day of June, 1870, the plaintiff entered into a contract with J. M. George for the sale of the farm and all the tools and utensils thereon, with the immediate possession, payment of the purchase-price to be made by installments after the first payment, and on full payment, plaintiff was to give George a full covenant deed.
It does not appear that Command had any visible possession of any part of the farm at the time of this contract between plaintiff and George, or that George had any notice of any agreement between the plaintiff and John Command.
The recognized rule in this state, in relation to land held under what are termed articles, i. e., executory contracts, purchase-money to be paid at a future day, with the right of immediate possession in the vendee, the legal title to be conveyed on payment of the .purchase-money; that the vendee has the rights of a mortgagor in possession.
The vendor is a mortgagee holding the legal title as security for the purchase-money (Vcm Wych agt. Alliger, 6 Barb., 507, and cases cited).
The transfer of the possession is a transfer of all the incidents of a rightful possession, the rents, issues and profits, and especially the emblements or annual crops.
By the contract with George, without reservation, the plaintiff undertook to and did transfer to the latter the immediate right of possession, and all right to the crops then growing or thereafter to be planted and grown and harvested.
By the transfer, the plaintiff disenabled himself from performing any agreement with" John Command for cropping on their joint account, and necessarily abandoned that agreement, and was most clearly estopped' from setting up any claim to the crops thereafter to be cultivated and harvested on the farm as against his vendee, George.
John and Patrick Command, after the sale to George, went on and planted, cultivated and harvested the tobacco in question. Though there is no evidence of a specific agreement between George and the Commands, yet it is clear that the Commands must have made this crop under some arrangement or license with or from George. John Command states that the tobacco was raised on George's farm, and that one-half belonged to George, and one-half to himself and his brother Patrick.
The defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value, without any notice of any claim on the part of the plaintiff. He bought of the three, George and. the two Commands, jointly, taking one bill of sale from the three. The plaintiff had clothed George with the apparent, and, as we think, with the real title.
The defendant may set up and rely upon the title of any one of his joint vendors. He claims, under George, title to a crop raised on George's farm, without notice of any claim by plaintiff; and the plaintiff is estopped by his contract of sale, with possession, to allege that he retained any interest in the crops.
Hone of the exceptions as to the admission of evidence were well taken.
The judgment should be affirmed. •