Maxwell v. Dimond

Citations

• 83 Wash. 30
• 145 P. 77
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1592

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error. It is harmless error to refuse to require plaintiffs, in an action for conversion, to elect whether they predicated their ownership on a sale, or upon ratification and eátoppel, where the trial proceeded upon the latter theory, and no claim of surprise or motion for continuance was made, but the defendants offered evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ theory.</p> <p>Landlord and Tenant — Cropping Lease — Conditions—Unauthorized Transfer — Ratification—Estoppel — Evidence — Sufficiency. Lessors who had made a cropping lease for winter wheat providing that the title to the crop should remain in them until receipt of their share, and that the lessees should not assign the lease without their consent or dispose of any part of the crop to the lessors’ prejudice, will be held to have ratified a public sale of their interests, made by the lessees in February, and are estopped to dispute the title of the purchasers at the sale, where there was evidence to the effect that the purchasers worked on the crop in March, April and May in full view of the lessors, living near by and working on adjoining land and that the lessors, shortly after the sale when the prospects for a crop were poor, were notified of the sale and made no objection or claim until May 20th, after the prospects for a large crop were assured.</p> <p>Same — Ownership of Crop — Estoppel—Evidence—Admissibility. In an action for the conversion of wheat, purchased by plaintiffs from a cropping tenant regardless of restrictive clauses in the lease, evidence of plaintiffs’ continued cultivation of the crop is admissible on the question of their good faith, and also on an issue of the estoppel of the defendant lessors after knowledge of such cultivation.</p>