Hisey v. Troutman
This text of 84 Ind. 115 (Hisey v. Troutman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Action’of replevin. The question in the case is whether there may be a parol reservation of the landlord’s share in growing wheat from a written lease of the land which takes effect, and under which the lessee takes possession, before the maturity of the crop. This court has held that the grantor, in a deed in fee, may avail himself of a parol reservation of growing crops. This conceded, there can be no reason in principle for not applying the same rule to a lease for a term of years. (
The question in this case arises upon the ruling of the court upon a demurrer to the reply; and counsel insist that the reply is argumentative, and therefore demurrable. It is not cause [116]*116for demurrer that the pleading is argumentative. Stoddard v. Johnson, 75 Ind. 20; Nicholson v. Caress, 76 Ind. 24; Judah v. Trustees, etc., 23 Ind. 272.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and with instructions to overrule the demurrer to the reply.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 Ind. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hisey-v-troutman-ind-1882.