Breher v. Hase

2 Citing cases

  1. Snipes v. Dexter Gin Co.

    116 P.2d 1019 (N.M. 1941)   Cited 6 times

    50; Moen v. Lillestal, 5 N.D. 327, 65 N.W. 694; Connally v. Hall, 84 Ga. 198, 10 S.E. 738; Sewell v. Underhill, 197 N.Y. 168, 90 N.E. 430, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 233 and Anno., 134 Am.St.Rep. 863, 18 Ann. Cas. 795), and as the equitable owner of the land, he is likewise the owner of the crops growing, or to be grown, thereon (Look v. Norton, 94 Me. 547, 48 A. 117; Killebrew v. Hines, 104 N.C. 182, 10 S.E. 159, 251, 17 Am.St.Rep. 672; Connally v. Hall, supra; Moen v. Lillestal, supra), unless title to the crops is reserved to the vendor or transferred to him or another. Lynch v. Sprague Roller Mills, 51 Wn. 535, 99 P. 578; Moen v. Lillestal, supra; Cahill v. McCowan, 130 Wn. 407, 227 P. 502; Bentler v. Brynjolfson, 38 N.D. 401, 165 N.W. 553; Yakoobian v. Johnson, 102 Cal.App. 10, 282 P. 522; Federal Land Bank v. McCloud, 52 Idaho 694, 20 P.2d 201; Loudon v. Cooper, supra; Scott v. California Farming Co. supra; Killebrew v. Hines, supra; Union Farm Land Co. v. Isaacs, 106 Wn. 168, 179 P. 84; Breher v. Hase, 54 N.D. 87, 208 N.W. 974. The provision in the contract in question reserved no lien on crops growing, or to be grown, upon the land, nor any right, title or interest therein; nor was it an equitable assignment of the "proceeds of said farm."

  2. Timm v. Arvidson

    227 N.W. 59 (N.D. 1929)   Cited 3 times
    In Timm v. Arvidson, supra, under a statute similar to Civil Code, section 1945, it was held that changing provisions of a lease of agricultural land relating to the furnishing of seed, the payment of the thresh bill, and the division of grain did not alter the continuity of the holding and did not effect a new agreement creating an estate but only an executed modification of the old lease.

    The defendant Arvidson testified to it himself, that he operated the land under the written lease and the oral agreement in relation to the furnishing of the seed and the division of the grain. The case of Breher v. Hase, 54 N.D. 87, 208 N.W. 974 is not in point. In that case the court simply held, that the contract for the sale of land did not provide for a lien upon the crop after the date of the expiration of the contract, and, of course, the defendant not being a tenant or lessee, but the purchaser, did not hold over under ยง 6094, Comp. Laws 1913, and there was no claim made that he did.