Randall v. Chubb

Michigan Supreme Court

Randall v. Chubb

9 N.W. 429, 46 Mich. 311, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 578

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 9 N.W. 429 (Randall v. Chubb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall v. Chubb, 9 N.W. 429, 46 Mich. 311, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 578 (Mich. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Marston, C. J.

The evidence fully sustains the finding of facts in this case.

Chubb leased the premises in question to Ayers Stoddard for the term of three years, with the privilege of five, upon shares. Stoddard was to do all the work, find all the seed and to deliver to the lessor one-third the crops. The farm was to be cropped in a certain specified way, and the lessee was to have the use of certain farm implements of the lessor, [312]*312and was to take good care of them and repair them at his own expense during the term of the lease. This lease and his rights thereunder the lessee afterwards undertook to assign to the plaintiff in error, and under circumstances of questionable good faith, and these proceedings were instituted by the lessor to recover possession of the premises.

The judgment of the court below was correct. The very nature and character of the lease or agreement shows that it was a personal one to the defendant, and could not be assigned by him to a third party without the consent of his lessor. The rent or share which the latter would receive, must depend very much upon the character of the lessee, and the latter could not place a party in possession of the premises, who might not be a good husbandman, and who might not be able to carry on the farm operations in a good, careful, and proper manner. Under such a lease the landlord has a right to choose his tenant, and he may be willing to lease upon shares to one man, and yet be wholly unwilling to let another have possession upon any terms. So with reference to the use of his farm implements, one might be a careful, prudent man, who would take good care of them, while another more reckless would not by the owner be permitted to use them upon any terms. The attempt to assign this lease and put another in possession thereunder worked a forfeiture thereof, and enabled the lessor to take immediate steps to regain possession.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Marston, C. J.

The evidence fully sustains the finding of facts in this case.

Chubb leased the premises in question to Ayers Stoddard for the term of three years, with the privilege of five, upon shares. Stoddard was to do all the work, find all the seed and to deliver to the lessor one-third the crops. The farm was to be cropped in a certain specified way, and the lessee was to have the use of certain farm implements of the lessor, [312]*312and was to take good care of them and repair them at his own expense during the term of the lease. This lease and his rights thereunder the lessee afterwards undertook to assign to the plaintiff in error, and under circumstances of questionable good faith, and these proceedings were instituted by the lessor to recover possession of the premises.

The judgment of the court below was correct. The very nature and character of the lease or agreement shows that it was a personal one to the defendant, and could not be assigned by him to a third party without the consent of his lessor. The rent or share which the latter would receive, must depend very much upon the character of the lessee, and the latter could not place a party in possession of the premises, who might not be a good husbandman, and who might not be able to carry on the farm operations in a good, careful, and proper manner. Under such a lease the landlord has a right to choose his tenant, and he may be willing to lease upon shares to one man, and yet be wholly unwilling to let another have possession upon any terms. So with reference to the use of his farm implements, one might be a careful, prudent man, who would take good care of them, while another more reckless would not by the owner be permitted to use them upon any terms. The attempt to assign this lease and put another in possession thereunder worked a forfeiture thereof, and enabled the lessor to take immediate steps to regain possession.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.W. 429, 46 Mich. 311, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-chubb-mich-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack