Black v. Eason, 32 N.C. 308, 10 Ired. 308 (1849)

Dec. 1849 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

32 N.C. 308, 10 Ired. 308

JOHN BLACK vs. SOLOMON EASON.

A. conveyed ío B. a tract of land, “together with the horses, cattle, cf c. and all crops on the ground,” in trust to sell for the payment of debts. At the da'fe of the deed there was a corn crop on the ground, but it was afterwafds destroyed by a frost, and a new crop was planted by A., who had been permitted to remain in possession. C. afterwards seized this new crop and converted it to his own use. Held, that B. was entitled to recover the value of this crop from C in an action of trover.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank County, at the Fall Term 1849, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding.

One Lamb, by deed, dated 22nd of March, 1846, conveyed to the plaintiff a tract of land, “together with the horses, cattle,” &c., and all crops on the ground” in trust, to sell and pay the debts enumerated, unless otherwise paid, before the 2nd of January, 1847.

At the date of the deed there was a corn crop in the ground, but on the 10th of April a severe frost destroyed the crop then growing — Lamb was permitted by the plaintiff to remain on the land, plough the ground, plant the crop a second time and cultivate it. The crop amounted to forty barrels, which were converted by the defendant, and this action is brought for the value.

His Honor was of opinion, that the plaintiff w’as not entitled to recover, and a non-suit having been entered, the plaintiff appealed.

A. Moore, for the plaintiff.

No counsel for the defendant,

Pearson, J.

We have arrived at a different conclusion. The intention, obviously, was to pass to the plaintiff the crop of corn, which might be made on the ground in 1846 ; and it could be urged with some force, that the words of the deed are broad enough to include the crop, which was made, although it was not, literally, the crop on the ground when the deed was executed.

But admitting, that, by an unforeseen event, the thing conveyed was destroyed, and that the second crop is not embraced by the words of the deed, it is clear, that the title to this second crop was in the plaintiff. The land was his, and so were the farming utensils and horses. 'Lamb was permitted to remain on the land and cultivate the new crop, not for himself, as a lessee, but for the plaintiff, as his agent or servant; the consideration being, that this substituted crop was to be applied to the payment of debts, in the same way that the first- crop and other property were to be.

So, although it may be; that the crop did not pass by the words of the deed, it became the property of the plaintiff, bécause it was made for him and upon his land. This result follows necessarily from the relation of the parties. An understanding, that Lamb was to make the new crop for the plaintiff, in the place of the crop destroyed, is as plainly to be implied, as if it had been expressed in so many words.

■ There must be a venire de novo.

Per Curiam.

Judgment accordingly.