State v. . Higgins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Higgins

36 S.E. 113, 126 N.C. 1112, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 370

DecidedMay 22, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 36 S.E. 113 (State v. . Higgins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Higgins, 36 S.E. 113, 126 N.C. 1112, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 370 (N.C. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Faircloth, C. J.

The defendant is indicted for stealing several ears of corn in August, standing, growing and un-gathered in the field, being cultivated for food and market. The indictment alleges that the corn was the “property of George Thomas.” The proof shows that the prosecutor, *1113 Thomas, was a tenant, and rented the land from Bassett who was to have one-third of the corn; that Thomas did not live on the land, but had charge of the field. At the close of the -evidence the defendant moved to be discharged on the ground of a variance in the bill, and in the proof in that the ownership was alleged to be in Thomas, whereas it should have been in Bassett, the landlord. This is the only question presented.

Where lands are leased or rented for agricultural purposes, the possession of the crop is deemed to be vested in the lessor. Code, sec. 1754. That section is only for a lessor’s protection. Against any third person, the tenant is •entitled to the possession of the land and the crop-, and for an injury thereto whilst it is being cultivated he may maintain an action in his own name for the injury. He is the '.“real party in interest.” Code, sec. 177. The Code, sec. 1754, et seq. are intended to adjust tire rights of landlord and tenant. Bridgers v. Dill, 97 N. C., 222, 227.

With this construction we thinlt the ownership of the crop was well charged in the indictment.

Affirmed.

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

Faircloth, C. J.

The defendant is indicted for stealing several ears of corn in August, standing, growing and un-gathered in the field, being cultivated for food and market. The indictment alleges that the corn was the “property of George Thomas.” The proof shows that the prosecutor, *1113 Thomas, was a tenant, and rented the land from Bassett who was to have one-third of the corn; that Thomas did not live on the land, but had charge of the field. At the close of the -evidence the defendant moved to be discharged on the ground of a variance in the bill, and in the proof in that the ownership was alleged to be in Thomas, whereas it should have been in Bassett, the landlord. This is the only question presented.

Where lands are leased or rented for agricultural purposes, the possession of the crop is deemed to be vested in the lessor. Code, sec. 1754. That section is only for a lessor’s protection. Against any third person, the tenant is •entitled to the possession of the land and the crop-, and for an injury thereto whilst it is being cultivated he may maintain an action in his own name for the injury. He is the '.“real party in interest.” Code, sec. 177. The Code, sec. 1754, et seq. are intended to adjust tire rights of landlord and tenant. Bridgers v. Dill, 97 N. C., 222, 227.

With this construction we thinlt the ownership of the crop was well charged in the indictment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.E. 113, 126 N.C. 1112, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-higgins-nc-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack