ARK.] MITCHELL V. HENDERSON. 1041
MITCHELL V HENDERSON. 4-4596
Opinion delivered April 26, 1937. LANDLORD AND TENANT.—Where appellee rented land from appellant for 1935 under, a contract that required him to pay as rent thirty per cent. of the proceeds of all cotton and cottonseed, one-half of the hay with a credit of four cents per bale for baling, and one-third of all other crops produced, and, also, provided that it should • expire on December 31, 1935, unless renewed by a written agreement which was not done, the question whether appellee. remaining on the land. for 1936 held under the 1935 contract or whether he was to pay, the customary ; rent in that community was submitted to the jury •on conflicting, evidence, and its' finding in favor of appellee, Was conclusive of the issue. Appeal from Conway Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; .affirmed. E. A. Williams; for appellant. . Edward Gordon and Harvey G: Combs,,for appellee. Smrix,-. J. L. E. Henderson became the tenant of E. E. Mitchell in 1921, and thereafter continued in possession of 'the rented land-through the year, 1936. During this time three written Contraets were entered into, these covering the years 1926, 1934 and 1935. For the other years there were 'no written contracts. The Contract for 1935 PrOvided that . it sheuld end December 31, 1935, unles's renewed-by a written agreeMent. 'It reqUired Henderson to pay aS rent 'thirty per cent. of the proceeds' of the 'cotton and' the cottonseed,' all of -Which waS to be sold' on the MorkiltOri market under the direction of Mitchell as gathered;'and one : half of the hay, to be delivered at Miteliell's barn, with a credit of four cents per bale for baling, and one'-thirci of 'all other crops were to be delivered ; to Mitchell as rent. The testimonY is in irrecoricilable Conflict as to the contract ' under which HenderSOn remained ih 'possession of the land and Cultivated , it during the'Year, 1936. ' The instructions i p resent the • conflicting' theories. 'The 'in: struction ttresenting Mitchell' g theork read§ "If you'find from the evide ; nCe in this: caselhat the plain= tiff and defendant entered'inte a' contract fo'r the year;
1042 MITCHELL V. HENDERSON. {193 1935, and at some time during the year, Mitchell told Henderson he could stay on the place for the year, 1936, under the same terms as in 1935, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff, E. E. Mitchell, for the rent according to the terms of the, 1935, contract." The theory of Henderson, the tenant, was submitted to the jury under an instruction reading as . follows : "If, upon the other hand, you find from the testimony in the case that Mitchell told Henderson he could stay on the place, and no terms or conditions were stipulated or agreed upon by them, the court tells you that Henderson would be liable for the usual and customary rent prevailing in that community." There was a verdict and judgment in favor of Henderson. The lestimbnY on behalf of. the partieS was sufficient to sustain the respective theories, and the 'Verdiet of 'the jury is, therefore, .conclusive 'of • this issne of lact. • Hen-derson testified in effect that he told Mitchell he would not continue to cultivate the land under the written contract in -the latter part .of Angust, 1935, and that if he continuedin possessiOn 'he would pay . only the .custothary rent,•which, according to the• testimony; was one-third of the corn and one-fourth of the cotton. Henderson nnder-stood this was satisfactory from what Mitchell then-said, and he had no intimation to the contrary nntil in Novem-ber, when notice was: . seryed that he must vacate unless the , written contract was renewed, . Ifft , ;.between-the date of the conversation in August And the .service..of the notice in _November, . •Henderson , had planted eighteen acres in wheat. The wheat was .sowed -oh land which had previously been a. thicket; which Henderson.had to prepare for cultivation. When Hendersonrrefused to. renew the written contract,. Mitchell. caused-a written notice to be served JAnuary 15, 1936, demanding the surrender of the premises: Henderson declined to . surrender possession, and remained on the, land during the year, , 1936, and, cultivated the usual crops.. In . the fall of ,that year Mitchell attached the, crops on the land, the attachment being based upon the alleged, grotmds that Henderson Was about to remove, the crops from,the, premises. with-•
ARK.] • MIiCHELL V. HENDERSON. 1043 out paying the rent, and that he had removed 'a portion thereof without the consent_of the landlord. The court instructed the jury that these were statutory grounds for attachment, and' that the attachment should be sustained if found to 'exist. The crops had not been completely gathered when the attachment was levied, but about twenty bales of cotten had been, ginned. These bales Of cotton were left on the gin yard, .where they still were , at the time Of the trial. The jurY specifically found that Henderson_ had not removed the cotton to the gin with the intention of defeating the landlord's lien, and the testimony is amply sufficient to support that finding. • • ' . , HenderSon testified that he *ma then and at all times had been willing to divide the cotton at the gin of to divide Wafter it wa g ginned in accordance with the general custom of the country, but that Mitchell-had• declined to make any settlement except upon the .terms of the, 1935, contract.. :Under the verdict of the jury this was not the effectiv contract, and Mitchell had no right to demand settlement in accordance with its terms. 'Mitchell testified that he demanded that the cotton be . sold and the proceeds divided as, provided in the 1935 contract, and he admitted that while Henderson declined to sell the cOtton; Henderson did propose to give him one-rouyth of it. Mitchell further ,testified ; "I explained to Aendersori that One:foi A rth was,not ,eriough." But it was enongh if the 1935 contract wa g not effective for that contract expired by its own terms op Iiecember. 31 1935 unless renewed, and .the ,jury has found that it : was not fenewed. Henderson wa g , therefore, liable only tof the usual and'customary rent on _the land, which he appears to have tendered before the trial. This tender was renewed at the trial. , • The: jtidgnient mist therefoie be affirmed and it is so ordered. ,
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.