Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/282

This page needs to be proofread.
258
48 NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS

Covell, (Mass.) 62 N. E. 244; Ft. Payne Coal Co. v. Webster, 39 N. E. 786.

In the instant case the crops were Mackey’s and plaintiffs had no rights therein. And could not and cannot maintain either conversion or veplevin against Mackey or his personal representatives. Moen v. Lillestal, s N. D. 327; 65 N. W. 604; Mpls. Iron Store Co. v. Braunn, 36 N. D. 355; 162 N. W. 543; 17 C. J. 1381; 39 Cyc. 1627; (Moen v. Lillestal is cited under Cyc. above) ; Golden V. L. & C. Co. v. Johnstone, 21 N. D. to1; 128 N. W. 691; Lynch v. Sprague Roller Mills (Wash.) 99 Pac. 578; Power Merc. Co. v. Moor Merc. Co. (Mont.) 177 Pac. 406.

“The occupier of land is the owner of all crops harvested during the term of his occupancy, whether he be a purchaser, tenant or a mere tres- passer in possession holding adversely.” Lynch v. Sprague Roller Mills, gg Pac. 578-9-80.

“Tn an action for the recovery of specific personal property the jury niust find by their verdict the facts as the case may be as follows.” § 7635, 1913 C. L.

“In case they find against the plaintiff and the property has been delivercd to him, and the defendant in his answer claims a return of the property, they must find the value thereof.” 34 Cyc. 1434; 1 Suther'and on Pleading, § 1254; 3 Sutherland on Pleading, § 4143.

Christianson, J. This is an action in claim and delivery. Plaintiffs seek to recover the possession of certain flax, or the value thereof in event delivery cannct be had. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant for a dismissal of the action, and plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment entered upon the verdict. The material facts are as follows:

On March 15, 1917, the plaintiffs entered into a written contract with one Ambrose Mackey, the defendant’s intestate, wherein and whereby they agreed to sell to said Mackey, and he agreed to buy from the plaintiffs, a certain 160-acre tract of land situated in Dunn county, in this state, on the so-called crop payment plan. By the terms of the contract, said Mackey agreed to pay to the plaintiffs—

“as and for the purchase price of said premises, the sum of $3,680, with interest on all deferred payments at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum, interest payable annually on the rst day of January of each and every year during the life of the contract, said interest to begin March 15, 1917, said