DocketNumber: Docket No. 38
Citation Numbers: 220 Mich. 473
Judges: Bird, Clark, McDonald, Moore, Sharpe, Steere, Wiest
Filed Date: 11/2/1922
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
On March 1,1918, for a.term of two years beginning April 1, 1918, plaintiff leased her farm of 63 acres to defendant for money rent of $375 per year, reserving, however, 28 acres of fall wheat then upon the land, which wheat belonged to plaintiff and Wiley,
“She says, * * * ‘put in just what you are supposed to have, the same as Wiley had when he was here/ 1 says ‘all right Mrs. Monteith, that is what I wanted to know/ and that is what I put in.”
Defendant’s wife testified that plaintiff said to defendant respecting' the wheat:
“Just put in the 28 acres you have coming to you.” * * *
Defendant paid the rent.
The record fairly indicates that plaintiff first questioned defendant’s right to such wheat shortly before he left the farm in March, 1921. Defendant attempted to harvest the crop. Plaintiff filed an injunction bill and had a restraining order. She caused the wheat to be harvested and sold. Defendant answered and prayed reformation of the lease and an accounting. We think the facts as stated are established by the
We think there was not such laches and acquiescence of defendant as to preclude his claiming the wheat. He sowed the wheat on the assurance of plaintiff that he might have it in accordance with their agreement for the lease. Therefore she should not now be heard to deny, upon the mistaken provision of the lease, the right of defendant to have the crop. The decree will be modified to allow to defendant the net proceeds from the sale of such wheat as shown by the proof. We are in accord with the other provisions of the decree respecting the account.
The decree as to the relief afforded, and so modified, is affirmed, with costs of this court to defendant.