the right, it would seem that any mode adopted by a petitioner which specifically calls the attention of the board to the fact that he no longer assents to and joins in the petition, but on the contrary protests against the allowance thereof, is sufficient. See note in 15 Ann. Cas. 1126, 1127.
Bronson, J., concurs.
W. J. MEYERS, Respondent v. JOHN RAISTY and Farmers Grain
Company, a Corporation, Appellants.
(183 N. W. 112.)
Landlord and tenant—when title to crops are to remain in landlord until division thereof, it is not necessary to file contract as chattel mortgage.
Following Merchants State Bank v. Sawyer Farmers’ Co-op. Asso. 47 N. D. 375, 14 A. L. R. 1353, 182 N. W. 263, it is held:
Where a lease of a farm on shares contains a provision to the effect that title to and possession of all crops shall be in the lessor until the conditions of the lease have been complied with by the lessee and a division made of the crop, such provision is effective without filing the contract as a chattel mortgage. An assignee of the tenant ig presumed to be acquainted with the terms and stipulations of the lease, and acquires no greater rights than the tenant had to transfer.
Opinion filed May 18, 1921.
From a judgment of the District Court of Ransom County, McKenna, J., defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Ego, Craig, & Thompson, for appellants.
Knowledge of the fact of tenancy is of itself sufficient to charge notice of all the incidents of tenancy : 2 Devlin, Real Estate, 3d ed. 1 775; Pom.
- ↑ NOTE.—For authorities discussing the question of necessity of filing lease or contract which reserves title to crops in lessor, see note in 14 A.L.R. 1362.
