This preserves defendants' right to exercise the early termination clause while also adequately accounting for plaintiffs' rights as they relate to emblements. Defendants' actions in exercising the early termination provision without allowing plaintiffs to reenter the land to care for and harvest their crops set forth a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (see generally 23A Props., Inc. v New Mayfair Dev. Corp., 212 A.D.3d at 902-903; Hilgreen v Pollard Excavating, Inc., 210 A.D.3d at 1348-1349; Dinwiddie v Jordan, 228 SW 126, 128 [Tex Commn App 1921]). Granting plaintiffs every possible favorable inference as we must, they have "pleaded facts sufficient to allege" a breach of contract cause of action (Cavosie v Hussain, 215 A.D.3d at 1083 [citations omitted]; see Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02841 at *13).
Fagan v. Vogt, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 528 [ 35 Tex. Civ. App. 528], 80 S.W. 664. The proper measure of damages cannot be determined until it is known which party breached the contract. Curlee v. Rogan, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 1126; Jordan v. Dinwiddie et al., Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W. 862. There is no doubt that appellee was liable to be discharged for cause, subject to his right to recover such an amount of the crop, or its proceeds, as is proportioned to the time which he worked on it. 15 Am.Jur. (Crops) 247, sec. 55
It is well established that courts will take judicial knowledge of such matters. Roberts v. Armstrong, Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 371; Matagorda Canal Co. v. Markham Irr. Co., Tex. Civ. App. 154 S.W. 1176; McCullough v. Rucker, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 89, 115 S.W. 323; Jordan v. Dinwiddie, Tex. Civ. App. 205 S.W. 862 (reversed on other grounds). Appellee challenges our finding that, on the 20th of July, 1947, he was informed by the appellant that appellant was the landlord for the year 1947.
In passing it may be observed that it is a matter of common knowledge of which judicial cognizance will be taken that in this jurisdiction wheat is sown during the autumn months and harvested the following summer. (23 C.J. 156; Jordan v. Dinwiddie, [Tex. Civ. App.] 205 S.W. 862, 863.) And the same is true of the grass seed which defendants ordered of plaintiff, it being composed of eighty per cent timothy and twenty per cent alsike; the common custom here being to sow grass seed in which timothy is the dominant quantity with the wheat.