Court Opinion

ID: 9853180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:43:59.801607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:42.164886
License: Public Domain

Miller, J.,
dissenting: I concur and join in the dissent of Schroeder, C.J.
The majority has, in my opinion, ignored the clear provisions of the statute requiring the giving of a thirty-day notice prior to the termination date fixed for wheat land: the last day of harvesting, or August 1, whichever comes first.
And, in addition, the majority’s ruling requires the land to lay idle for an entire year, to the detriment of the landowners, the tenants, the economy, and the consumer. Under the majority holding, the tenants should have remained in possession of the land until March first — but they could not plant a crop!
The tenants planted a crop, and the majority says “they did so at their own risk.” This, I take it, will require the tenants to forfeit *385the crop — even though it was planted after the district court held that their tenancy was not terminated. As tenants they were obligated to farm the land during the pendency of the appeal.
I would affirm the trial court.