Clarke v. Cobb
Before: Garoutte, Harrison
Synopsis
Landlord and Tenant—Lease—Rent Payable in Produce.—A contract by which farming lands were demised and let for a term of years to one who agreed to give annually for the use thereof a certain portion of the crops of grain and other products grown thereon is a lease, creating the conventional relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, and not a cropping contract. The portion of the grains and fruits to be delivered to the landlord, when gathered, is rent, which is a compensation for the use of the land, and may be made payable in any chattels or products of the soil, equally as well as in money.
In.—Cotenancy in Crops—Property of Tenant—Rent.—Though a landlord and tenant, who are not cotenants of the land, may be made cotenants in the crops to be raised, such cotenancy does not exist, where there are no appropriate words in the lease to indicate it; and, in the absence of such words, the products to be delivered to the landlord after harvest will be deemed the property of the tenant until the delivery is made, and treated as rent to be then paid.
Id.—Sale of Leased Land under Foreclosure—Apportionment of Rent to Purchaser.—A sale under the foreclosure of a mortgage upon leased land, upon which a portion of the products of the soil was to be delivered annually as rent, and which became due and payable for the year, after the purchase from the sheriff, and before the expiration at the time for redemption, does not entitle the purchaser to the whole of the rent; but he is entitled, under section 707 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only to an apportionment of a share of the annual rent, in proportion to the unexpired part of the lease-year existing after the purchase.
Id.—Assignment of Lease—Recovery of Rent.—The effect of the sale by the sheriff under foreclosure was equivalent to an assignment of the lease by the landlord to the purchaser for such portion of the lease-year as existed between the time of purchase and the expiration of the time for redemption, white the purchaser held the certificate of sale; and his recovery of rent is limited to the amount of rent earned for that time.
In.—Certificate of Sale—Interest in Crops.—The certificate of sale of land, issued by the sheriff, does not pass any interest in the crops grown upon the land and ripened and harvested during the period of redemption.
Opinion — Garoutte
GAROUTTE, J. W. J. Clarke and plaintiffs and appellants, executors of the estate of W. J. Clarke, deceased, respectively entered into contracts with one Cobh, whereby said Cobb agreed to farm and cultivate certain lands to grapes and grain for a term of years. For present purposes these contracts were the same, and it was provided therein that the lands were demised and let to said Cobb, he agreeing to give annually for the use thereof a certain portion of the crops of grain and other products grown thereon. At the time these contracts were entered into mortgage liens rested upon the realty. Subsequently, these liens were foreclosed, and under such foreclosure proceedings the mortgagees became the purchasers of the land, and certificates of sale were issued to them. The sales under foreclosure proceedings took place in January and April, respectively, of 1896, and, no redemption intervening, deeds passed to the purchasers six months thereafter. Crops of various kinds were cultivated upon these lands by Cobb under his contracts during the cropping season of 1895-96; and subsequent to the aforesaid sales of the land, and during the period of time allowed by law for redemption, these crops were gathered and harvested by Cobb. As provided in his contract, he set aside the portion thereof to be given for the use of the land. But, upon notice and warning from the purchasers at- the sale, he refused to deliver the same to the plaintiffs, and this action was brought against him by them for a recovery of the possession thereof. Clarke died subsequent to the making of the contract with Cobb, and prior to the foreclosure proceedings. The mortgagee purchasers at the sale, claiming the property by virtue of their purchase, intervened, and-have, become the real defendants in interest.
It is conceded by all parties that the merits of this litigation are dependent upon the construction to be given that portion of section 707 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides: “The purchaser, from the time of the sale until a redemption,- [597]and a redemptioner, from the time of his redemption until another redemption, is entitled to receive from the tenant in possession the rents of the property sold, or the value of the use and occupation thereof.”
At the threshold of this investigation it becomes important to determine the legal status of the contracts entered into with Cobb by Clarke and his executors. That these contracts were leases, that the conventional relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and that the grains and fruits to be delivered to the landlord when gathered and harvested were rent, we are entirely satisfied. Eent is a compensation paid for the use of land. It need not be money. Any chattels or products of the soil serve the purpose equally as well. These contracts are in no sense cropping contracts. The single difference differentiating them from ordinary conventional leases is that the rent is to be paid in products of the*soil, after harvest, rather than in money. But such difference is wholly immaterial, as changing the character and aspect of the instruments.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)