Johnston v. Fish

California Supreme Court Jan 4, 1895 No. No. 15503Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party in adverse possession of land who harvests crops is the owner of those crops, and the true owner of the land—even after establishing title—cannot recover the harvested crops from the occupant or the occupant's vendee. The true owner's remedy is limited to an action for the value of the use and occupation of the land.

Issues

Whether a party in adverse possession of land is entitled to the crops harvested during such possession.
Whether the true owner of land can recover crops harvested by an adverse possessor from the possessor's vendee.
Whether a judgment against an adverse possessor for the possession of crops binds a third-party purchaser who acquired the crops prior to the action.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the owner out of possession is not entitled to the fruits of the land, nor can he, after he has established his right to the possession, recover the fruits of the land from one who has purchased them from an occupant”

Synopsis

Fraudulent Conveyance—Disseisin by Vendor—Ejectment by Bona Eidb Purchasers—Title to Crops.—Where the vendor of land has made a conveyance which was procured by fraud of the vendee, and has afterwards taken possession of the land in disregard of the conveyance, his action is a disseisin, and his possession is adverse to the whole world; and, pending an action of ejectment by bona fide purchasers from the fraudulent vendee, the vendor is entitled to dispose of the crops during the period of his possession, and any one dealing with him, therefore, becomes the owner of what is purchased from him, and their title is not affected by the subsequent determination of the ejectment suit in favor of the bona fide purchasers.

Id.—Rights op Plaintiff in Ejectment—Use and Occupation—Fruits i of Land.—The plaintiff in ejectment is entitled to recover from a defendant only the value of the use and occupation, and is not entitled to the fruits of the land, nor can he, after he has established his right to the possession, recover the fruits of the land from one who has purchased them from the defendant while in adverse possession.

Id —Purchaser of Crops—Knowledge of Ownership of Land.—The fact that a purchaser of the- crops from the claimant of the land in adverse possession knew that the plaintiffs in ejectment claimed to be the owners of the land does not impair his right of recovery of the crops as against them.

Id.—Right to Fruits—Volunteer Crops.—The right to the fruits of the land does not depend upon the amount of labor expended by the occupant in their production, and it is immaterial whether the hay out from the land was a volunteer crop, or had been sown under a cropping contract with the occupant, and the fruits gathered belong to him as fully as the crops.

Id.—Cropping Contract—Purchase—Replevin—Conversion of Crops— Trover.—One entitled to two-thirds of the crops and fruits under a cropping contract, and to the remaining one-third by purchase from the occupant in adverse possession, is not affected by a judgment in replevin brought against the occupant for the possession of the crops by the plaintiffs in the ejectment suit, to whom possession was delivered in the •replevin suit, and such owner may recover damages from them for the conversion of the crops.

Harrison, J. Action to recover damages from defendants for the conversion of certain hay.

The plaintiff’s right of action grows out of the following facts: Prior to March 1, 1881, Henry Benson had been for many years the owner of a tract of land in Contra Costa county, which on that day he conveyed to one Jones. In May of the same year Jones conveyed it to the defendants herein. The conveyance from Benson to Jones was procured by the fraud of the latter, and on the 1st of September of that year Benson took possession of the land, claiming it as his own, upon the ground that by reason of the fraud he was entitled to disregard his conveyance, and remained in possession until evicted under a judgment in ejectment by the defendants herein in March, 1883. Shortly after Benson went into possession of the land the defendants herein brought an action of forcible entry against him, which was tried before a jury and a verdict and judgment rendered in his favor November 12, 1881. In April, 1883, this verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered, but no further step was taken in the action until 1887, when the action was dismissed. November O 21, 1881, the defendants commenced an action in ejectment against Benson and others for the recovery of the land and damages for the withholding thereof. The plaintiff herein was made a defendant in this action, but upon his disclaimer he was dismissed from the action November 29, 1881. A cross-complaint was filed in the action in behalf of Benson to avoid his conveyance to Jones on the ground of fraud; and upon the trial of this issue a decision was rendered February 19, 1883, in favor of the plaintiffs therein, upon the ground that they were bona fide purchasers from Jones for [422]value, and after this decision the trial of the issues in the ejectment was had, in which the plaintiffs withdrew their claim for damages, and judgment was rendered in their favor March 22, 1883. On the 1st of December, 1881, the plaintiff herein made a cropping contract with Benson for the cultivation of the land, under which he sowed a portion thereof to hay, which he harvested in the following summer. By the terms of this agreement the plaintiff was to have two-thirds of the crop, and Benson the remaining third; and, after the hay had been cut and stacked, the plaintiff bought from Benson his third of the crop. Subsequently thereto, and while the hay was still on the ground, the defendants herein brought an action of claim and delivery against Benson for the hay, in which, under their direction, the sheriff took possession thereof, and subsequently delivered it to them. This action was brought before the trial was had in the ejectment suit, and issue was joined therein by Benson, but no further proceedings were had therein until 1887, when, upon the stipulation of Benson, judgment for the possession of the hay was entered against him. The present action was commenced in January, 1883, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the hay, assessed at the sum of four thousand dollars.

Johnston v. Fish

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief