DocketNumber: Appeal, 122
Judges: Rhodes, Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold
Filed Date: 4/15/1947
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Argued April 15, 1947. Appellants, tenants under an agricultural lease of a farm owned by appellees, are here attempting to receive two crops for one year's rental, an unheard of proposition either under the common law or the general custom in Pennsylvania. There is no statute on the subject.
Under the common law a tenant for years had no right to a crop of grain sown by him during a term and coming to maturity after its expiration. Littleton, Section 68.
The common law has been modified in Pennsylvania by a general custom, that has the status of a general *Page 285 law, that where a lease commences in the spring of one year and ends in the spring of another and the tenant does not receive acrop at the commencement of his lease, he is entitled to the crop of winter grain sown by him before the expiration of his lease.Stultz v. Dickey, 5 Binney 285; Comfort v. Duncan, 1 Miles 229.
Appellants brought this action in trespass to recover damages of appellees on the ground that they were prevented from entering upon appellees' land for the purpose of harvesting a crop which they had planted during their tenancy. From the entry of judgment n.o.v. they have brought this appeal.
They contend that, notwithstanding they received the full benefit of the crop of wheat planted by the appellees and which they, the appellants, harvested, they also are entitled to the wheat which they planted but which did not ripen until after the expiration of their lease. This on the ground that the written lease contained no express provision taking away from them the right to the way-going crops planted by them. As a general rule their contention is sound (Commonwealth v. Peterman et al.,
Judgment affirmed. *Page 286