Court Opinion

ID: 9624323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:58:17.31636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:43.483755
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur. However, I would agree with the dissent if I thought the defendant was a mere licensee on the lands of another. For reasons hereafter stated I cannot believe such to be the case.
Under the evidence given, the trial court would not say who did own the land upon which the dry kiln building of the defendant was located but found that the defendant did not own any interest therein. I think the trial judge was in error in making this finding, and the dissent must fail if this finding is erroneous.
The record shows that the land in question was owned either by J. E. Crofts & Sons, a partnership, or by Crofts-Pearson Industries, a partnership (now a corporation), or by both of the partnerships. In order to see the true picture, it would be helpful to understand the relationship existing between those two partnerships and the defendant corporation. That relationship is as follows:
Partners of J. E. Crofts & Sons Partners of Crofts-Pearson Industries Stockholders Holding All Stock of Defendant Corporation
John Crofts John Crofts John Crofts
Cy Crofts Cy Crofts Cy Crofts
Leo Crofts Leo Crofts Leo Crofts
Edward Crofts Edward Crofts Edward Crofts
Alvin Crofts
Marden Pearson Marden Pearson
Dwain Pearson Dwain Pearson
*48It will be noted that of the five brothers constituting the J. E. Crofts & Sons partnership, four were also partners in the firm of Crofts-Pearson Industries. The two Pearsons were brothers. The members of the Crofts-Pearson Industries owned all of the stock of the defendant corporation.
In this case the Pearson brothers and all of the Croft brothers in J. E. Crofts & Sons partnership except Alvin Crofts, acting through the defendant corporation, made improvements upon the plant of the defendant corporation and spent some $24,-000 of the defendant’s money in doing so.
For 20 years the plant of the defendant corporation has been located in its present position. The defendant bought all of the lumber sawed by the two partnerships and sold the same. It kiln dried such of the lumber as it chose to dry and sold the rest of the lumber as green lumber. No rent has ever been paid by the corporation and none has ever been requested by either of the partnerships. The defendant corporation and Crofts-Pearson Industries share a common office and have a common office employee.
I cannot conceive of a court permitting either or both of the partnerships to say to the defendant corporation, “You have no interest in this land. Get off”; and this is especially so in view' of the fact that it was the members of the partnership who spent the defendant’s money in making the improvements.