Adams v. Thornton

California Supreme Court Jul 25, 1905Published

Before: Buckles

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the agreement between the parties constituted a cropping contract rather than a lease, creating a tenancy in common in the crops. Consequently, one cotenant cannot maintain an action of replevin against the other for the common chattels.

Issues

Were the plaintiff and defendant cotenants in the fruit in controversy?
If cotenants, could the plaintiff maintain replevin against the defendant for the common chattels?

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the parties are cotenants in the fruits raised during the time of the contract, and each has an equal right with the other to the possession of the whole of said fruit”

“under the general rule, neither can maintain a suit against the other for the possession of the fruit.”

Synopsis

Cropping Contract.—Where Plaintiff, the Owner of Certain Orchards, contracted to let defendant a house and furnish implements, horses, wagons, feed, spraying materials, boxes, and trays for curing and marketing the fruit, furnish new trees to replace missing ones, pay for one-half of boxing materials when shipped, and, when dried, to pay for the expenses of cutting, drying, and sacking his share, and in consideration of defendant’s labor in raising, harvesting, shipping, and marketing the fruit, the latter was to have one-half of the crop, the contract was a mere cropping contract, and not a lease, and plaintiff and defendant were therefore tenants in common of the crop.

Cropping Contract—Replevin.—Where Plaintiff and Defendant were Tenants in Common of a crop raised by defendant under a cropping contract, plaintiff was not entitled to maintain replevin against defendant for a portion of the crop alleged to have been wrongfully taken from plaintiff’s premises.

BUCKLES, J. The complaint in this action was claim and delivery. The defendant set up by way of answer a contract, and alleged that under it he and plaintiff were copartners in carrying on the business of fruit growing and dividing the profits between them, and asked for a dissolution and an accounting. Judgment was for the plaintiff and for the [220]return to him of all the property mentioned in his complaint, and for four dollars, damage and costs. Numerous errors are alleged in the hill of exceptions in the ruling of the trial court in the introduction of evidence, hut in the briefs of counsel before us these matters are not touched upon at all, and only two points are presented for our consideration, viz.: 1. Were the plaintiff and defendant eotenants in the fruitin' controversy ? And 2. If cotenants, could the plaintiff maintain replevin against the defendant for the common chattels?

For the better understanding of the matter it is necessary to set out the contract under which the parties were operating, or, at least, so much of it as will assist in determining the questions involved, and it is as follows:

“New Hope, Cal., Nov. 1, 1899.

“This indenture, made this 1st day of November, 1899, between Arthur Thornton, of New Hope, county of San Joaquin, and state of California, as party of the first part, and W. H. Adams, as party of the second part, witnesseth: That the said Arthur Thornton, party of the first part, for and in consideration of the covenants hereinafter stated, hath let,_ and by these presents doth grant, demise, and let, unto the said party of the second part, W. H. Adams, all that parcel or parcels of orchard lands situated in the county of San Joaquin, near New Hope, and described as follows: [Then follows the description of a 50-acre orchard and a 10-acre orchard]—for the term of one year from above date. The said party of the first part does agree with the party of the second part that he will let him a house, that he will furnish implements, horses, wagons, feed, also spraying materials, also boxes and trays necessary for the curing and marketing of the fruit. The party of the second part does agree with the party of the first part that he will in due season prune the trees of said orchard in a workmanlike manner; that he will remove all brush ■ and replant all trees needed to fill vacancies (said Thornton to furnish trees) ; that he will thoroughly spray said trees and plow and cultivate said lands; that he will properly thin fruit, will pick and deliver to railroad or steamer landing when shipping to cannery, and share and share alike, or, if for eastern market, will pack all fruit for shipment, furnishing crates or boxes for same, the said party of the first part to pay for one-half of boxing materials and packing, and share and share alike, or, if dried,

Adams v. Thornton

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief