Opinion
Gen. No. 9,576.
Opinion filed May 27, 1948. Released for publication June 22, 1948.
1. APPEAL AND ERROR, § 1360 — stipulation of facts for purpose of appeal. Where, for purpose of defendants' appeal from judgment upon verdict for plaintiff, parties stipulated as to facts and requested Appellate Court's ruling on points of law, and no report of proceedings was filed, court could not consider weight of evidence as to disputed questions of fact and was bound to assume that verdict determined these in plaintiff's favor.
See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.
2. LANDLORD AND TENANT, § 58fn_ — lessee's right to wheat crop as against purchaser of land. Where farm lease for term of one year commencing March 1, 1943, expressly provided that if, at expiration of lease, lessee bad crops growing lie could thereafter harvest them, and lessor on August 23, 1943, agreed in writing to extend lease for one year commencing March 1, 1944, under same conditions, and thereafter sold farm in May 1944, possession to be given March 1, 1945, lessee had right to plant wheat in September 1944 and to harvest it in summer of 1945, notwithstanding that lessor notified lessee in August 1944 that tease would not be renewed and regardless of conflicting testimony concerning conversations between lessee and purchaser about planting and harvesting wheat.
3. LANDLORD AND TENANT, § 58fn_ — jury question as to lessee's right lo wheat crop as against purchaser of land. In lessee's action against purchaser of farm land for conversion of lessee's interest in wheat crop planted in fall of 1944, prior to expiration of lease terminating March 1, 1945, it was within jury's province to believe lessee's testimony that purchaser agreed in August 1944, to planting of wheat, and about March 15, 1945, also said that there would be no trouble about harvesting it.
4. LANDLORD AND TENANT, § 58fn_ — notice to purchaser of land as to lessee's right to wheat crop. Whether lessee's possession of farm land was notice to purchaser that lessee bad rights was immaterial in determining liability of purchaser for conversion of lessee's interest in wheat crop planted in September 1944, prior to expiration of lease terminating March 1, 1945, where it was stipulated that purchaser had possession of lessee's lease in August 1944, and lease expressly provided that if, at expiration thereof, lessee had crops growing lie could thereafter harvest them.
5. LANDLORD AND TENANT, § 58fn_ — conversion of lessee's wheat crop by purchaser of land. Where lease of farm land expiring March 1, 1945, expressly provided that if, at expiration of lease, lessee had crops growing lie could thereafter harvest them, and lessee planted wheat in fall of 1944, and moved from promises on March 1, 1945, and purchaser of farm refused to permit lessee to thereafter enter premises to harvest wheat, and wheat was harvested and sold by purchaser, who refused to account to lessee for latter's interest in wheat, purchaser was guilty of conversion and was liable to lessee.
6. COSTS, § 89fn_ — abstract of record on appeal. Where judgment was affirmed, cost of abstract of record, furnished by appellee, was assessed against appellants.
Appeal by defendants from the Circuit Court of Jersey county; the Hon. CLEM SMITH, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1948. Affirmed. Opinion filed May 27, 1948. Released for publication June 22, 1948.
R.W. GILL, of Springfield, for appellants.
DU HADWAY SUDDES, of Jerseyville, for appellee.
Plaintiff appellee, Otto Kraushaar, obtained a judgment in the sum of $1,943.58, upon verdict of a jury, against defendants appellants, Thomas Matthew and Blanche B. Matthew, for conversion of a one-half interest in a 1945 wheat crop.
For the purpose of this appeal the parties stipulated as to the facts and requested the court's ruling on certain points of law. No report of proceedings has been filed, so that the court is unable to consider the weight of the evidence as to disputed questions of fact, and the court must assume that the jury's verdict determined these in favor of the plaintiff.
The facts are that on December 14, 1942, one M.M. Baker, entered into a written lease with plaintiff for certain farm land in Jersey county, Illinois, for the term of one year beginning March 1, 1943. The lease provided that the landlord should receive one-half of the crops and further provided that if, at the time of the lease's expiration the lessee should have crops growing, then lessee could thereafter harvest the crops. This latter provision was expressly inserted for the purpose of permitting plaintiff to plant wheat in the fall of 1943 and to harvest it in the summer of 1944, after the expiration date of March 1. Wheat was so planted and harvested that year. On August 23, 1943, Baker agreed, in writing, to a one year extension of the lease, that is, from March 1, 1944, to March 1, 1945, under the same terms and conditions. In May 1944, Baker sold the premises to defendants with possession to be given March 1, 1945, and on August 25, 1944, Baker notified plaintiff, in writing, that the lease would not be renewed. Plaintiff planted about 165 acres of wheat in September 1944. He moved from the premises March 1, 1945, in accordance with the terms of the lease, and thereafter was refused entrance to the premises for the purpose of harvesting the crop, which was in fact harvested by defendants in July 1945, and sold for $3,544.96, no part of which was paid to plaintiff.
The stipulation of facts recites that defendant, Thomas Matthew, testified that in August 1944, he told plaintiff that he expected to farm the land during the year beginning March 1, 1945, and that plaintiff should not put in any crop which would not mature prior to such date. One witness corroborated this conversation and plaintiff and his wife denied it. The jury evidently gave credit to plaintiff's denial and this court, in the absence of a report of proceedings, is unable to pass upon the weight of the conflicting testimony. The stipulation also recites that plaintiff testified to two conversations with defendant, Matthew, in August 1944, in which plaintiff was told to go ahead with his wheat planting. This was denied by defendants. Again, the court is unable to pass upon the weight of this testimony and must assume that the jury believed the testimony of plaintiff. This is also true as to plaintiff's testimony that on March 1, 19452 while moving, Matthew said there would be no trouble about harvesting the wheat, which statement is denied by defendants.
It is our view that the written lease, as extended, gave plaintiff the right to plant the wheat crop in the fall of 1944 and to harvest it in the summer of 1945, and this regardless of the testimony as to conversations between plaintiff and defendants. The cases cited by defendants have no application to a situation such as this wherein express agreement is contained in the lease.
As to questions of law submitted, our findings are as follows:
1. Did plaintiff have the right to put in said wheat crop in 1944, and to return after March 1, 1945, to harvest the crop when it matured?
Answer: Yes, under the express provision of his written lease, as extended.
2. When did plaintiff's right accrue to him?
Answer: On August 23, 1943, when Baker, then owner, in writing extended the existing written lease one year, which lease contained an express provision in regard to harvesting crops maturing after the termination of the lease. In addition to this, it was within the province of the jury to believe the testimony of plaintiff that defendants, in August 1944, agreed to the planting of wheat, and about March 15, 1945, also said there would be no trouble about Ne harvesting of the wheat.
3. Was plaintiff's possession notice to defendants of plaintiff's rights?
Answer: Plaintiff's possession was notice to defendants that he had some rights. This is immaterial as paragraph 11 of the stipulation sets forth that in August 1944, defendants actually had possession of plaintiff's written lease.
4. Were such rights cut off by notice of August 25, 1944, from M.M. Baker?
Answer: No one, including M.M. Baker, could nullify the provisions of the written lease, as extended, which provided that plaintiff had the right after March 1, 1945, of entering the premises for the purpose of harvesting the wheat crop. Baker's written notice was effective solely to notify plaintiff that the lease could not be renewed for the year beginning March 1, 1945.
5. Were defendants guilty of conversion and selling the wheat crop and refusing to account to plaintiff for one-half thereof?
Answer: Yes, as a matter of law, and yes, as a matter of fact, as the jury passed on this matter on the basis of testimony which has not been preserved for review by report of proceedings.
In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed. Plaintiff appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal for various grounds which need not be considered in view of our conclusion. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. The cost of the abstract of the record, furnished by appellee, is assessed against the appellants.
Affirmed.