Doot v. Skirving Warehouse Co.

THE COURT.

The hearing by this court was granted herein after decision by the district court of appeal in and for the third appellate district, wherein the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, in order that further consideration might be given by this court to the question presented upon this appeal. Upon such further consideration this court is satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the appellate tribunal written by Mr. Justice Pullen,

pro

tempore, and therefore hereby adopt the same as the decision of this court. Such decision reads as follows:

“On the 14th day of February, 1920, J. F. Bedwell, the intervener herein, was the owner of certain lands situated in Placer and' Sutter counties, which on that date intervener leased to Habib Ulla and Rahmat Ulla, who agreed to pay intervener certain cash rentals and in addition thereto one-third of all crops of rice raised on said lands delivered by them to the warehouse free and clear of all claims-and demands. The lease also contained a crop mortgage on one-half of the lessees’ interest in the crops which might be grown upon the lands, as security for the faithful performance of all the terms of the lease.

“The first cash payment provided to be paid under the lease was paid, and the lessees went into possession; in the

[77]

spring of 1920 they planted the lands to rice and about the latter part of November, 1920, began cutting the rice. After having cut approximately thirty acres they were prevented from further cutting of the crop on account of the unseasonable rains.

“Apparently the lessees became financially involved and were unable to proceed further with their farming operations, whereupon the lessees Habib Ulla and Rahmat Ulla and the receiver of the First National Bank of Gridley, who held an unpaid chattel mortgage on the crop of the lessees, and Kier Singh Boot, the plaintiff herein, entered into an agreement in writing wherein Kier Singh Boot, the plaintiff, agreed to thresh, sack and deliver to the warehouse all the rice crop at a price in said agreement agreed upon, the receipts therefrom to be divided one-tliird to the landlord, J. F. Bedwell, and two-thirds to be retained by the warehouseman, and upon five days’ notice to the receiver of the bank, he at his option could pay certain designated expenses incurred by plaintiff, whereupon the receipts were to be delivered to said receiver, but if the receiver should elect not to pay the expenses so designated the receipts should be issued to plaintiff herein. Thereafter, and in accordance with said agreement, plaintiff threshed, sacked and delivered the crop of rice to the warehouse of defendant and thereafter the receiver elected not to exercise his option under the agreement and within the time stipulated so notified defendant; thereupon plaintiff demanded that the receipts for two-thirds of the crop be delivered to him, he having already delivered one-third of the rice to the intervener as provided in the lease. About the same time intervener made a similar demand on defendant, claiming that he, the intervener, was the only person entitled to the receipts under the terms of his lease and crop mortgage, and later defendant, ignoring the demands of plaintiff, delivered to intervener the warehouse receipts for all of the rice in controversy, aggregating about 1725 sacks.