Hisey v. Troutman

84 Ind. 115
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1882·No. No. 9376·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Woods, J.

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

Hisey v. Troutman, 84 Ind. 115 (Ind. 1882).

84 Ind. 115 (Hisey v. Troutman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Willard v. Higdon
91 A. 577 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1914)
Cooper v. Kennedy
124 N.W. 1131 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1910)
Emery v. Fugina
32 N.W. 236 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1887)