Adams v. Thornton

Citations

• 7 Cal. Unrep. 219
• 82 P. 215
• 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 293

Syllabus

<p>Cropping Contract.—Where Plaintiff, the Owner of Certain Orchards, contracted to let defendant a house and furnish implements, horses, wagons, feed, spraying materials, boxes, and trays for curing and marketing the fruit, furnish new trees to replace missing ones, pay for one-half of boxing materials when shipped, and, when dried, to pay for the expenses of cutting, drying, and sacking his share, and in consideration of defendant’s labor in raising, harvesting, shipping, and marketing the fruit, the latter was to have one-half of the crop, the contract was a mere cropping contract, and not a lease, and plaintiff and defendant were therefore tenants in common of the crop.</p> <p>Cropping Contract—Replevin.—Where Plaintiff and Defendant were Tenants in Common of a crop raised by defendant under a cropping contract, plaintiff was not entitled to maintain replevin against defendant for a portion of the crop alleged to have been wrongfully taken from plaintiff’s premises.</p>