Court Opinion

ID: 6543479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:17:41.818356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:53.988972
License: Public Domain

Riddick, J., (dissenting.) I concur in the judgment, but do not agree to so much of the opinion as holds that nothing but the act of God or the public enemy can excuse the tenant from gathering his crop. When the tenant agrees to give a fixed sum of money or a certain quantity of cotton or other produce for rent, this rule would apply; but it is different when, as in this case, the tenant agrees to cultivate and gather the crop, and give the landlord a certain portion of the crop raised. The amount of the rent then depends upon the quantity of the crop raised, and this depends not only upon the labor and skill of the tenant and the fertility of the soil, but also upon the many contingencies that may beset even the most prudent husbandman. The tenant must use due diligence both in cultivating and in gathering the crop, and the landlord is entitled to a share in such a crop as the tenant by labor and diligence can harvest, but to no more. The landlord may sue the tenant for the value of his share of the crop. In such a suit I agree that it would not be a valid defense for the tenant to say that the cost of gathering the crop would be greater than its value, for he must comply with his contract. But if a thief should enter the field at night, and steal a portion of the crop, or if, without fault of the tenant, a herd of breachy cattle should break in and destroy a portion of the crop, the landlord should, under a contract such as we have here, lose proportionately with the tenant; for the agreement of the tenant, as I understand it, is not that he will give a fixed amount of rent, but only such a share in such a crop as he may be able to culivafe and gather by due diligence. He is not an insurer of the crop, nor liable for its loss by causes against which he could not have guarded by the use of care and diligence. For these reasons, it seems to me that the expression that nothing but the act of God or the public enemy can excuse the tenant, when applied to the facts of this case, is not an accurate statement of the. law. Bunn, C. J., concurs.