Court Opinion

ID: 9868315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:28:42.750892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:48.985062
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Fraser.
I dissent. I dissented in the previous case, but, of course, I am as much bound by that decision as any other member of this Court.
My construction of that opinion is that this Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court to have the jury pass upon the question as to whether the plaintiff did or did not have notice of the defendant’s rights. ■ I consider that matter res ad judicata in this case, and it is necessary to submit that question to the jury.
There, is another matter that involves but little money, and that is the right of the defendant to destroy the crops on the land. I do not find any case in this State on the subject, but it is laid down as follows (18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Eaw, at page 190) :
“Where the landlord terminates the tenancy, the tenant at will is entitled to a reasonable time in which to remove his family and possession, and not only is the tenant not a trespasser in the exercise of this right, but the landlord will be liable to him if he disturbs the tenant in the exercise of such right.”
To illustrate: A leases land from B for the year 1915. On 31st December, 1915, the lease terminates by law by its own limitations. A does not formally renew his lease, but simply remains in possession without protest from B. During January, 1916, A is a tenant at will, and continues to be a tenant at will during that year. It is true if A stays long enough he may become a tenant from year to year and is entitled to notice, and cannot be dispossessed during the year, but during the year 1916 A is a tenant at will. Now, suppose the land is farm land; can B wait until A’s crops are ready for harvest and then turn A out and take his *329crops ? I think the Court would be bound to allow A time to harvest his crop, or award damages for the taking.
In this case the plaintiff was not a tenant at will or licensee. She owned the fee. She had the right to use the land in any way that did not interfere with the use by the railroad company. When the railroad company found it necessary to extend their use, I think they were bound to give the plaintiff a reasonable time to remove her property or pay damages for the destruction of her property.