Neal v. Bellamy
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil ACTION for the delivery of certain cotton, claimed as rent, tried before Waits, J., at the Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Nash county. The'following are the facts pertinent to the points raised and decided in this Court, as appear from the statement accompanying the record.
Read the full summary
Civil ACTION for the delivery of certain cotton, claimed as rent, tried before Waits, J., at the Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Nash county. The'following are the facts pertinent to the points raised and decided in this Court, as appear from the statement accompanying the record. Early in the year 1872, the witness, John W. Davis, heard a statement of the bargain between the plaintiff, Neal, and one’ Isaac Taylor, the defendant’s intestate, in regard to the cultivation of a certain piece of land belonging to the plaintiff, for the said year of 1872. The contract was a verbal one,…
1Opinion of the CourtPeaesoN, C. J.
The dividing line between a tenant and a cropper is indistinct, and in many cases hard to rnn.
In Rogers v. Haywood, at this term, we hold that when the crop is to le the property of the owner of the land, that fixes the character of cropper, and not of tenant, upon the man who is to do the work. According to that principle, the contract in our case was not an executed one, so as to make a term of years, and vest in Taylor an estate, and a right to bring ejectment, or an action for land and damages, under C. C. P., but was an executory contract, by which Neal employed Taylor to work the]land,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Peele v. PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Whitehurst v. . PadgettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Kelly Handle Co. v. Crawford Plumbing & Mill Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Comar Oil Co. v. RichterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Gennett v. . LyerlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.