Rutledge v. Murphy

The jury found that appellee rented certain land from appellant and contracted to deliver to him as rental therefor one-third of the cotton produced by him thereon. The trial court, however, held that this contract was void as being in violation of the provisions of the so-called Landlord and Tenant Act of this state (Rev. St. art. 5475), which declare “null and void” any contract between landlord and tenant by the provisions of which a rental in excess of one-fourth, of the crop is charged and given for the use of cotton land where the tenant “furnishes everything except the land.” It was…