Kaiser v. Kaiser

FINCH, P. J.

The complaint alleges that the defendants leased 160 acres of land to the plaintiff for the cropping season of 1927 and 1928 for the raising of wheat thereon, the defendants to receive as rental one-third of the crop and the plaintiff to receive two-thirds thereof, he to pay all the expenses of producing and harvesting the crop; that the plaintiff planted the land to wheat and, “in all respects, duly complied with the terms and requirements of said lease upon his part”; that about March 2, 1928, “and shortly before said wheat crop was ready to harvest and before the same was harvested, the defendants, wrongfully and without the consent and against the will of the plaintiff, ejected plaintiff from said premises and took

[670]

possession of said premises and said crop and thereafter proceeded to harvest said crop and refused to acknowledge any interest .therein on the part of the plaintiff and declared that the plaintiff had no interest therein and refused to account to plaintiff for any part or proceeds of said crop, or to repay or reimburse him in any manner whatsoever in the premises.” The prayer is for an accounting of the proceeds of the crop and for judgment for the amount found upon such accounting to be due to the plaintiff.

The answer denies the allegations of the complaint and alleges as a counterclaim that the “plaintiff is indebted to the defendants in the sum of $780 for board, room and laundry furnished by defendant to plaintiff.”

The court found that the land involved is the separate property of the defendant Henry Kaiser, who will be referred to as the defendant; that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a verbal agreement of lease as alleged in the complaint and “that in and by said agreement it was further agreed that the plaintiff should perform certain labor, to-wit, the care of pasture stock, the doing of certain chores and otherwise caring for certain other property and premises of said defendant adjoining said property leased, . . . for which the plaintiff was to be paid” $25 a month; that the plaintiff performed the terms of the agreement on his part; that he performed such labor for eleven months; that the defendant advanced all of the money used in the “production and hauling of said crop,” and “it was agreed between the said parties that defendant should be repaid by the application of the wages due plaintiff from said defendant and out of the proceeds of said crop”; that the defendant took possession of the crop “against the will and without the consent of the plaintiff”; and that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $500 for board and room.