From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Gregg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1897
17 App. Div. 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

Opinion

May Term, 1897.

J.W. Atkinson, for the appellant.

Thomas O'Connor, for the respondent.


It was competent for the plaintiff to show, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the custom of the country as to the outgoing crop. ( Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N.Y. 180.) The defendant, by conceding that the parties were tenants in common of the crop, conceded in effect all the plaintiff could obtain from such evidence and more; for, if the plaintiff had, in violation of the contract (which is doubtful, Unglish v. Marvin, 55 Hun, 45), left the farm, he had thereby lost his right to the emblements. (4 Kent's Comm. 73; Samson v. Rose, 65 N.Y. 411.) But, being tenants in common of the crop, Gregg, by converting the whole of it to his own use, became liable to the plaintiff for the value of the plaintiff's share. ( Osborn v. Schenck, 83 N.Y. 201.)

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Harris v. Gregg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1897
17 App. Div. 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
Case details for

Harris v. Gregg

Case Details

Full title:JOHN L. HARRIS, Respondent, v . DAVID GREGG, as Committee, etc., of AMASA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 1, 1897

Citations

17 App. Div. 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
45 N.Y.S. 364

Citing Cases

Hetfield v. Lawton

Thus, if an estate be given during widowhood, and the tenant marry while a crop is growing, she is not…