Rue v. Kutzbach

Replevin for the owner’s share of certain crops raised .by defendant under a cropping contract. After trial without a jury, defendant appeals from the judgment for plaintiff for the value of the property.

The only point here is the claim for defendant that the decision for plaintiff is erroneous because in August, 1917 (the contract covering the crop season of that year), a time when it must be considered that the crops in question were still growing and unsevered from the land, the owner (since deceased, Ms personal representative being substituted as plaintiff), conveyed the premises to a…