Rich v. . Hobson

16 S.E. 931, 112 N.C. 79

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 5, 1893
• Status: Published

Opinion

Bun well, J.:

The answer of the defendant expressly denied that the crop, for the possession of which this action is brought, was vested in the plaintjff. This denial avoided the necessitjr for any demand before the commencement of the action. Under the provisions of section 1754 of The Code a tenant holds the actual possession of a crop for and in behalf of the landlord in whom it is " deemed and held to be vested in possession” until all rents and advancements are paid. Hence, such being the relation of the parties, the denial by defendant of his landlord’s title to the crop, as in cases where a principal sues his agent and the latter denies the agency, “ raises a state of antagonism inconsistent with the purpose of a demand,” and “ is tantamount to saying that any demand would have been an idle ceremony.” Waddell v. Swann, 91 N. C., 105 ; Wiley v. Logan, 95 N. C., 358.

It is further contended that this action cannot be maintained, because when it was commenced only a portion of the crop had been gathered, and none of it had been disposed of or consumed, and therefore the plaintiff, though the owner of it according to the provisions of The Code (section 1754), was not entitled to the possession.

In the contract between the parties no time was fixed for the division of the crop. Hence, the landlord was not obliged to wait till the whole crop was gathered. Smith v. Tindall, 107 N. C., 88. And, besides, the defendant’s denial of Ms landlord’s right entitled the latter to maintain tliis action. Livingston v. Farish, 89 N. C., 140.

It is stated that the defendant excepted to the judgment rendered against him. No specific exception was filed, and the case- does not point out the error complained of, and none was called to our attention on the argument.

Affirmed.