Caswell v. Districh
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Monroe common pleas. The plaintiff as ‘executrix of D. Caswell, brought an action of assumpsit against Districh for the rent of certain premises. The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Read the full summary
Error from the Monroe common pleas. The plaintiff as ‘executrix of D. Caswell, brought an action of assumpsit against Districh for the rent of certain premises. The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial, the plaintiff produced a written agreement between her testator and the defendant to the effect: that the testator had agreed to let the defendant have his farm for one year, and that Districh had agreed to sow oats and give the testator one third in the half bushel ;• corn, one third in the basket; to sovz three lots (particularly described) into wheat, and give the testator one…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
The agreement between the parties was a letting of the premises upon shares, and, tecffnically speaking, was not a lease. 8 Johns. R. 151. 3 id. 221. 2 id. 421, n. 8 Cowen, 220. There is nothing which indicates that the stipulation for a portion of the crops was by way of rent; but the contrary. The shares were of the specific crops raised upon the farm. It is very material to the *380landlord, and no injury to the tenant, that this view of th"é contract should be maintained, unless otherwise clearly ex4 pressed, for then the landlord has an interest to the extent of his…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Taylor v. . BradleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Smyth v. TankersleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Donnell v. HarsheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- McNealy v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1879
- Aiken v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.