Case v. Hart
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a motion for a new trial, in an action of trover, from tho county of-Huron. It is submitted to the court upon the following agreed case : “ On February 12, 1839, the plaintiff, Case, leased to Petty and Brayton a portion of his farm, in the township of Lyme, Huron county.
Read the full summary
This is a motion for a new trial, in an action of trover, from tho county of-Huron. It is submitted to the court upon the following agreed case : “ On February 12, 1839, the plaintiff, Case, leased to Petty and Brayton a portion of his farm, in the township of Lyme, Huron county. The material parts of the lease are as follows: ‘ Article of agreement,' made this February 12, 1839, between Abraham Case, of the first part, and Charles Petty and Rufus Brayton, of the second part, witnesscth: the said party of the first part agrees to rent to said party of the second part tho west side of the road…
1Opinion of the CourtBirchard, J.
By the terms of the agreement, which is a lease to a cropper for a year, the landlord was to receive one-third of the corn and oats raised, to bo delivered in the half-bushel. The position taken by the defendants’ counsel, upon which turn the whole merits of this motion, is, that until the delivery of the third part of the crops reserved as rent, the landlord had no property in them, and that consequently trover does not lie. By the usage of the country, so long continued as to have become the law of the land, a landlord thus leasing has a Hen upon or property in the growing crop until…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Opinion No., Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1948
- Opinion No., Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1975
- Opinion No., Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1948
- Opinion No., Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1954
- Opinion No. 57-0723, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1957
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.