Wentworth & Osborn v. Miller & Lux
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, San Benito County. The action was trover for the value of eighty-eight thousand two hundred pounds of wheat and thirty thousand pounds of barley. The answer denied the conversion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, San Benito County. The action was trover for the value of eighty-eight thousand two hundred pounds of wheat and thirty thousand pounds of barley. The answer denied the conversion. The Court found that the defendants had leased certain farming lands of which they owned the fee to one Pool, under an agreement that Pool should pay one-fourth of the crop as rent, and that the possession of the crop should remain in the lessors (the defendants here) until the rent had been paid; and that before paying the rent Pool executed to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
Whatever may be the character of the instrument recited in the findings and denominated a lease, it is clear that by the terms of the contract the grain, after it was cut, was under the control of defendants, and in so far as it was in possession of the lessees, so called, was in their possession simply as servants of defendants.
The purchasers from the lessees acquired no other or greater interest in the grain than that of the parties named as lessees, and could assert no right to the possession as against the defendants.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. PurvisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Howell v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Consolidated Land & Irrigation Co. v. HawleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Gray v. RobinsonArizona Supreme Court · 1893
- DeVaughn v. HowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.