Gvosdanovic v. Harris

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Gvosdanovic v. Harris

1913 OK 359, 134 P. 28, 38 Okla. 787, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 438

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 27, 1913

Docket2419

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1913 OK 359 (Gvosdanovic v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gvosdanovic v. Harris, 1913 OK 359, 134 P. 28, 38 Okla. 787, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 438 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HAYES, C. J.

Defendants in error brought this action in the court below to obtain an injunction, enjoining plaintiff in error from in any way interfering with their possession of a certain tract of land, consisting of about 120 acres, and from interfering with their harvesting of a crop of com on said tract of land. A motion to dissolve a temporary injunction granted by the trial court was overruled; but the evidence, taken on the hearing of that motion, is not preserved in the record. Thereafter a demurrer to the petition of defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, was filed by plaintiff in eror, defendant below, which motion was overruled. Defendant thereupon filed his answer, which was a general denial. A trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, making permanent the temporary injunction therefore granted.

The assignment of error which complains of the overruling of the demurrer to the petition of plaintiffs is tlie only assignment ' we need consider. It has been urged that we cannot consider this action of the court below because more than a year elapsed from the overruling of the demurrer before the institution of the appeal in this court; but the appeal in this court was begun within one year after the rendition of the judgment of the trial court, which was the time prescribed by the statute then in force within which proceedings in error to review final judgments might be brought, and the overruling of the demurrer may be considered. Love et al. v. Cavett, 26 Okla. 179, 109 Pac. 553.

*789 Plaintiffs allege ,in tbeir petition in the lower court substantially that they rented from defendant, for the year 1909, a certain quarter section of land in Kay county, except the orchard, vineyard, pasture, and mow lands of said quarter section, which were retained by defendant; that they were to plant said lands <so rented in com, and were to give to defendant one-third of the com grown thereon, to be delivered to him on the place or in Ponca City, as defendant should elect. The lands rented consisted of about 120 acres in cultivation, upon which was cultivated- and grown by plaintiffs a crop of com, which was matured and ready to be gathered when defendant employed hands, wagons, and teams, entered the field, and began to gather same. Fe locked the gates to prevent the entrance of plaintiffs into the field, and threatened to shoot one of plaintiffs, if he- entered the place to gather the corn. Entrance into the field could be made ■by plaintiffs only by breaking the locks and chains which had been placed upon the gates by defendant. They allege that defendant has no property out of which they could collect 'any judgment for damages. The petition fails to state ■a cause of action for injunction, in that it does not show that plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

Since by their contract plaintiffs were to gather the crop of com raised by them, and to divide the same and deliver to defendant his' one-third, plaintiffs had a right to the possession of said com until the same bad been gathered and divided, and they could maintain replevin therefor. Cunningham v. Baker, 84 Ind. 597; Garth v. Caldwell, 72 Mo. 622; Matlock v. Fry, 15 Ind. 483; Hecht v. Dettman, 56 Iowa, 679, 7 N. W. 495, 10 N. W. 241, 41 Am. Rep. 131; Cannon v. Matthews, 75 Ark. 336, 87 S. W. 428, 69 L. R. A. 827, 112 Am. St. Rep. 64, 5 Ann. Cas. 478; Cobbey on Replevin, sec. 36. And if plaintiffs were entitled under their contract to possession of the leased premises until after removal of the crop *790 therefrom, they could have maintained an action of forcible entry and detainer, which -would have afforded them a remedy for the recovery of the premises from which they had been evicted by their landlord, and a recovery of the crop of corn standing thereon.

For the reason that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiffs’ petition, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and-the cause remanded.

All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HAYES, C. J.

Defendants in error brought this action in the court below to obtain an injunction, enjoining plaintiff in error from in any way interfering with their possession of a certain tract of land, consisting of about 120 acres, and from interfering with their harvesting of a crop of com on said tract of land. A motion to dissolve a temporary injunction granted by the trial court was overruled; but the evidence, taken on the hearing of that motion, is not preserved in the record. Thereafter a demurrer to the petition of defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, was filed by plaintiff in eror, defendant below, which motion was overruled. Defendant thereupon filed his answer, which was a general denial. A trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, making permanent the temporary injunction therefore granted.

The assignment of error which complains of the overruling of the demurrer to the petition of plaintiffs is tlie only assignment ' we need consider. It has been urged that we cannot consider this action of the court below because more than a year elapsed from the overruling of the demurrer before the institution of the appeal in this court; but the appeal in this court was begun within one year after the rendition of the judgment of the trial court, which was the time prescribed by the statute then in force within which proceedings in error to review final judgments might be brought, and the overruling of the demurrer may be considered. Love et al. v. Cavett, 26 Okla. 179, 109 Pac. 553.

*789 Plaintiffs allege ,in tbeir petition in the lower court substantially that they rented from defendant, for the year 1909, a certain quarter section of land in Kay county, except the orchard, vineyard, pasture, and mow lands of said quarter section, which were retained by defendant; that they were to plant said lands <so rented in com, and were to give to defendant one-third of the com grown thereon, to be delivered to him on the place or in Ponca City, as defendant should elect. The lands rented consisted of about 120 acres in cultivation, upon which was cultivated- and grown by plaintiffs a crop of com, which was matured and ready to be gathered when defendant employed hands, wagons, and teams, entered the field, and began to gather same. Fe locked the gates to prevent the entrance of plaintiffs into the field, and threatened to shoot one of plaintiffs, if he- entered the place to gather the corn. Entrance into the field could be made ■by plaintiffs only by breaking the locks and chains which had been placed upon the gates by defendant. They allege that defendant has no property out of which they could collect 'any judgment for damages. The petition fails to state ■a cause of action for injunction, in that it does not show that plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

Since by their contract plaintiffs were to gather the crop of com raised by them, and to divide the same and deliver to defendant his' one-third, plaintiffs had a right to the possession of said com until the same bad been gathered and divided, and they could maintain replevin therefor. Cunningham v. Baker, 84 Ind. 597; Garth v. Caldwell, 72 Mo. 622; Matlock v. Fry, 15 Ind. 483; Hecht v. Dettman, 56 Iowa, 679, 7 N. W. 495, 10 N. W. 241, 41 Am. Rep. 131; Cannon v. Matthews, 75 Ark. 336, 87 S. W. 428, 69 L. R. A. 827, 112 Am. St. Rep. 64, 5 Ann. Cas. 478; Cobbey on Replevin, sec. 36. And if plaintiffs were entitled under their contract to possession of the leased premises until after removal of the crop *790 therefrom, they could have maintained an action of forcible entry and detainer, which -would have afforded them a remedy for the recovery of the premises from which they had been evicted by their landlord, and a recovery of the crop of corn standing thereon.

For the reason that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiffs’ petition, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and-the cause remanded.

All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 359, 134 P. 28, 38 Okla. 787, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gvosdanovic-v-harris-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack