Bernal v. Hovious

Citations

• 17 Cal. 541

Syllabus

<p>Bours v. Webster, (6 Cal. 661) that growing crops are not goods and chattels within the fifteenth section of the Statute of Frauds ; and that—not being susceptible of manual delivery, until harvested and reduced to actual possession—they pass by deed or conveyance from the necessity of the case, affirmed.</p> <p>Vischer v. Webster, (13 Cal. 58.) that where two parties are living on a ranch, and one sells his interest in the growing crops to the other, the fact that both parties continue to live on the ranch, and that the vendee works for the vendor as a hired man, does not make the sale void as against creditors, affirmed; and the principle applied to this case.</p> <p>Where V., an owner of land, makes a verbal agreement with B.—which they term a lease—by which B. is to have the land for three years ; V. to furnish the farming implements, wagons, horses and his share of sacks; B. took all the land, and give V. for the use of it one-third of the grain raised, after it is put in sacks, free from the expense of threshing : Held, that this agreement is not a lease, but a contract for working the farm upon shares; and that the parties are tenants in common of the grain, until a division be made.</p> <p>Held, further, that a Sheriff having an attachment against Y. may levy on his interest in the grain; and to effect this, may take and detain possession of the entire quantity of grain; but he can sell under the execution on the judgment that may be recovered in the action only the undivided one-third interest of V.—the purchaser at the sale becoming tenant in common with B.</p>