Note on Contracts for Farming on Shares. The parties of the for and during the term of five years from April 1, 1891, which term will end March 31, 1896. In consideration whereof the said party of the second part hereby agrees to and with the said party of the first part to occupy, till and work upon shares the said farm during the term aforesaid, in a good, workman-like manner [see, Young v. Gay, 41 La. Am. 758; s. c., 6 So. Rep. 608; Shaw v. Mager, 95 Cal. 301; S. C., 30 Pac. Rep. 541], and he further agrees that he will not commit any waste or damage or suffer any to be done; that he will furnish one-half of all the seed, including grass and clover seed, to be sown on said premises during said time, and the parties of the first part agree to furnish the other one-half. The. party of the second part is to do all the work on said farm and market all the crops, and divide the proceeds derived therefrom equally between the parties of the first part and himself; and in case the parties of the first part should not be willing to market their one-half, after suitable consultation by the party of the second part with them, the party of the second part has the right to sell his one-half and to put the share of the parties of the first part in store, or leave the same in the bins. first part are to pay the County and State taxes during said term, and the party of the second part is to pay the road and school. taxes, but said school taxes are not to mean any extra taxes for buildings, etc. Each party is to furnish one-half of all stock to be kept on said farm during said term, which, with the increase thereof, are to be owned in common, except that the party of the second part has the right to keep two cows and such a number of horses as may be necessary to properly work said farm, and the pasture, hay and straw necessary for the keep of said two cows and the horses comes from undivided pasture, hay and straw, but whatever grain he shall feed shall be from his own share of the same. The party of the second part shall keep the fences on said farm in good repair, and whatever new fence that may be necessary he shall build the same, but the materials therefor shall be furnished by the parties of the first part, and whatever new posts he may need, he shall cut from the logs furnished by the parties of the first part. The party of the second part has the privilege during the term of cutting and marketing seventy-five cords of wood each year, onehalf of which shall belong to each party. The party of the second part has the right to cut sufficient fire-wood for his family use during said term. The wood to be cut upon shares shall be cut from the north side of the woods, but in no event shall there be any cut south of the lane. Each party is to pay for one-half of all fertilizers to be used on said farm during said term, except that the Note on Contracts for Farming on Shares. parties of the first part shall pay for all the plaster used, and the party of the second part shall draw and sow the same. Each party shall have sufficient fruit for family use, and the party of the second part shall pick, harvest, and market the balance, and divide the proceeds equally between the parties of the first part and himself. The wheat now on the ground shall be cut and harvested by the party of the second part, and he shall have one-half of the proceeds of the same, and the fall before the expiration of this contract the party of the second part shall sow and leave upon the farm for the use of the parties of the first part twenty acres, which is about the number of acres of wheat now on the ground. All fowls on the place are to be owned in common, and the proceeds are to be equally divided, and they are to be fed from undivided grain. The parties of the first part reserve the right to sell this farm at any time during said term, and the party of the second part agrees to surrender possession of the same on April 1st of any year during said term, in case said sale is made, and the parties of the first part hereby agree to pay any damages that the party of the second part may sustain by reason of a sale, said damage to be determined, if the parties cannot agree, by each party selecting a man who shall assess the damages. The parties of the first part reserve one or two rooms in the house for storage purposes, and a room in the horse barn; the rooms in the house to be agreed upon hereafter. It is further agreed that the parties of the first part shall leave sufficient hay and straw to carry the stock until pasture, and the party of the second part is to leave the same amount at the expiration of this lease. [Signatures.] The following cases on contracts of this nature will be useful to the practitioner : 1. As to the general nature of the contract, see Loomis v. O'Neal, 73 Mich. 582; s. c., 41 N. W. Rep. 701; Jones v. Durrer, 96 Cal. 95; s. c., 30 Pac. Rep. 1027; De Vaughn v. Howell, 82 Ga. 336; s. c., 9 S. E. Rep. 173; Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95; s. c., 4 S. E. Rep. 892; Perry v. Beaupré, 6 Dak. 49; s. c., 50 N. W. Rep. 400; Raymond v. Krauskopf (Iowa), 54 N. W. Rep. 432; Meacham v. Herndon, 2 Pick. (Tenn.) 366; s. c., 6 S. W. Rep. 741; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 48 Hun, 142; Vaughn v. De Wandler, 63 How. Pr. 378; Schroeppel v. Dingman, 17 Weekly Dig. 257; Gilmore v. Ontario Iron Co., 22 Hun, 391; Roberts v. Cone, 3 Alb. L. J. 151; Andrew v. Newcomb, 32 N. Y. 417; Taylor v. Bradley, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 363; Wilber v. Sisson, 53 Barb. 258; Tanner v. Hills, 48 Note on Contracts for Farming on Shares. N. Y. 662; rev'g, 44 Barb. 428; Bradish v. Schenck, 8 Johns. 151; People v. Smith, 3 How. Pr. 226; De Mott v. Hagerman, 8 Cow. 220; Caswell v. Districh, 15 Wend. 379; Wright v. Mosher, 16 How. Pr. 454; Putnam v. Wise, 1 Hill, 234; Dinehart v. Wilson, 15 Barb. 595; Harrower v. Heath, 19 Barb. 331; Coe v. Hobby, 72 N. Y. 141; Unglish v. Marvin, 128 N. Y. 380; Coudert v. Cohn, 118 N. Y. 309; Talamo v. Spitzmiller, 120 N. Y. 37; Harft v. Tonnelli, 30 State Rep. 859; Woodward v. Conder. 33 Mo. App. 147; Hammock v. Creekmore, 48 Ark. 265; s. c., 3 S. W. Rep. 180; Parkes v. Webb, 48 Ark. 293; s. c., 3 S. W. Rep. 521; McElmurray v. Furner, 86 Ga. 215; Kyte v. Keller, 76 Iowa, 34; s. c., 39 N. W. Rep. 928; Tautlinger v. Sullivan, 80 Iowa, 218; s. c., 45 N. W. Rep. 765; Lawrence v. Weeks, 107 N. C. 119; Smith v. Schultz, 89 Cal. 526; s. c., 26 Pac. Rep. 1087; Bryant v. Pugh, 86 Ga. 525; s. c., 12 S. E. Rep. 927; McLaughlin v. Kennedy, 49 N. J. L. 519; s. c., 10 Atl. Rep. 391. 76. 2. As to lease of land and chattels, see Zule v. Zule, 24 Wend. 3. As to house and buildings, see Hanaw v. Bailey, 83 Mich. 24; s. c., 46 N. W. Rep. 1039; Hay v. Cumberland, 25 Barb. 594; Fort v. Brown, 46 Barb. 366; Doyle v. Gibbs, 6 Lans. 180; Kerrains v. People, 60 N. Y. 221; S. C., 19 Am. Rep. 158; rev'g on another point, 1 Supm. Ct. 333; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 44 State Rep. 660; s. c., 18 N. Y. Supp. 387; McNutt v. Shafer, 34 State Rep. 661. 4. As to quarry, clay-bed, etc., see Baker v. Hart, 52 Hun, 363; s. c., 5 N. Y. Supp. 345; Freer v. Stotenfur, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 189; rev'g 36 Barb. 641; Smith v. Palmer, 13 Weekly Dig. 201. 5. As to the products in general, see Burdick v. Washburn, 53 Barb. 397; s. c., 36 How. Pr. 468; Hobbs v. Wetherwax, 38 How. Pr. 385 Brooks v. Galster, 51 Barb. 196; Van Hoozer v. Cory, 34 Barb. 9; McCombs v. Becker, 3 Hun, 342; s. c., 5 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 550; Hawkins v. Giles, 45 Id. 318; Betsinger v. Schuyler, 46 Id. 349; Clarke v. Quinn, 21 Weekly Dig. 110; Welton v. Holmes, 6 State Rep. 546; Briggs v. Austin, 29 State Rep. 245; s. c., 8 N. Y. Supp. 786; Harder v. Plass, 57 Hun, 540; Briggs v. Austin, 129 N. Y. 208; s. C., 41 State Rep. 378; Colville v. Miles, 127 N. Y. 159; s. c., 38 State Rep. 132. 6. As to firewood, see Verplanck v. Wright, 23 Wend. 506; Bleecker v. Smith, 13 Id. 530. 7. As to covenant to farm, etc., see Young v. Gay, 41 La. Am. 758; s. c., 6 So. Rep. 608; Shaw v. Mayer, 95 Cal. 301; s. c., 30 Pac. Rep. 541; Scott v. Haverstraw, etc., Co., 135 N. Y. 141; s. c., below, 42 State Rep. 804; McCulloch v. Dobson, 133 N. Y. 114. Note on Contracts for Farming on Shares. 8. As to title to the growing crops, see Wadley v. Williams, 75 Ga. 272; Connell v. Richmond, 55 Conn. 401; Adams v. State, 87 Ala. 89; s. c., 6 So. Rep. 270; Rich v. Hobson (N. C.), 16 S. E. Rep. 931; Riddle v. Hodge, 83 Ga. 173; Pelton v. Draper, 61 Vt. 364; s. C., 17 Atl. Rep. 494; Farnum v. Hefner, 79 Cal. 575; s. c., 21 Pac. Rep. 955; Daniel v. Harris, 84 Ga. 479; s. c., 10 S. E. Rep. 1013; Stickney v. Stickney, 77 Iowa, 699; s. c., 42 N. W. Rep. 518; Culverhouse v. Worts, 32 Mo. App. 419; Hopper v. Haines, 71 Md. 64; s. c., 18 Atl. Rep. 29; 20 Atl. Rep. 159; Humes v. Dottermus (Pa.), 13 Atl. Rep. 78. 9. As to delivery, see Singleton v. Clack, 79 Ga. 523; Durdin v. Hill, 75 Id. 228; Smith v. Tindall, 107 N. C. 88; s. c., 12 S. E. Rep. 121; Wood v. Noack (Wis.), 54 N. W. Rep. 785; Rawlins v. Bush (1888), 80 Ga. 588; s. c., 5 S. E. Rep. 634. 10. As to title to mature crop, see Nuernberger v. Von Der Heidt, 39 Ill. App. 404; Constantine v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, 239; Jencks v. Smith, N. Y. (Comst.) 90; Harrower v. Heath, 19 Barb. 331; Borell v. Newell, 3 Daly, 233; Gregg v. Boyd, 69 Hun, 588. 11. As to lien, see Wisner v. Ocumpaugh, 71 N. Y. 113; Hess v. Sprague, 13 Weekly Dig. 164; Barber v. Marble, 2 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 114; McCaffrey v. Woodin, 65 V. Y. 459; s. c., 22 Am. R. 644, with note; rev'g 62 Barb. 316; Hale v. Omaha Nat. Bk., 39 Super. Ct. J. & S.) 207; aff'g 47 How. Pr. 201, and aff'd in 64 N. Y. 550, but on other grounds; Thomas v. Bacon, 34 Hun, 88; Smith v. Taber, 46 Id. 313; Streeter v. Ward, 12 State Rep. 333; Gregg v. Boyd, 69 Hun, 588; Bleakley v. Sullivan, 62 Id. 243. 12. As to forfeiture, see Harrison v. Clifton, 75 Iowa, 736; s. c., 38 N. W. Rep. 406; Koeleg v. Phelps, 80 Mich. 466; s. c., 45 N. W. Rep. 350; Farnum v. Hefner, 79 Cal. 575; s. c., 21 Pac. Rep. 955; Collier v. Cunningham, 2 Ind. App. 254; s. c., 28 N. E. Rep. 341; Jones v. Durrer, 96 Cal. 95; s, c., 30 Pac. Rep. 1027; Eaton v. Wilcox, 42 Hun, 61. 13. As to re-entry, see Haywood v. Miller, 3 Hill, 90. 14. As to apportionment, see Kent County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Burrows (Superior Court), 6 Houston (Del.), 355. 15. As to the effect of abandonment, see Kiplinger v. Green, 61 Mich. 340; s. c., 45 N. W. Rep. 350. 201. For a note on mining and exploitation leases, see 26 Abb. N. C. As to covenants to pay taxes, assessments, etc., see note in 29 Abb. N. C. 161. Booher v. Stewart. BOOHER v. STEWART. N. Y. Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department; January, 1894. Chattel mortgage.] An agreement to work a farm on shares, which provides that the entire crop shall continue to belong to the owner of the farm until he is repaid his advances, is not in the nature of a chattel mortgage or conditional sale, but is a mere contract of hiring for the working of the farm to be compensated by a share in the crop, and need not be in writing or filed in order to give it precedence over a chattel mortgage made by the party who did the work; the entire crop, in such a case, when raised, belongs to the owner of the farm until his advances are repaid, and the party who did the work has no interest or property therein which is capable of transfer by chattel mortgage. * Appeal from an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial upon the minutes made at the Livingston County Circuit. Action brought by George W. Booher against William N. Stewart to recover damages for an alleged conversion of oats by the defendant. The complaint alleged that on October 4, 1892, Joseph Macauley was the owner of an undivided onethird of about 1,400 bushels of oats, then in his possession, in the county of Livingston, of the value of $150; that Macauley was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of about $70, and to secure such indebtedness and further credit at plaintiff's store, Macauley gave plaintiff his promissory note for $150, secured by a chattel mortgage upon his undivided interest in the oats in controversy; that the mortgage was duly filed; that afterwards the *See last case, and note at the end of that case. |