Graves against Weld
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1833 |
| Date | 12 June 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 731
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & M. 725; 2 L. J. K. B. 176.
graves against weld. Wednesday, June 12th, 1833. Tenant for a term determin-able upon a life, sowed the land in spring, first with barley, and soon after with clover. The life expired in the following summer. In the autumn the tenant mowed the barley, together with a little of the clover plant which had sprung up. The clover so taken made the barley straw more valuable, by being mixed with it; but the increase of the value did not compensate for the expence of cultivating the clover, and a farmer would not be repaid such expence in the autumn of the year in which it was sown. The reversioner came into possession in the winter, and took two crops of the same clover after more than a year had elapsed from the sowing: Held, that the tenant was not entitled to emblements of either of these two crops; first, because emblements can be claimed only in a crop of a species which ordinarily repays the labour by which it is produced within the year in which that labour is bestowed; and, secondly, because, even if the plaintiff were entitled to one crop of the vegetable growing at the time of the cesser of his interest, this had been already taken by him at the time of cutting the barley. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 725; 2 L. J. K. B. 176.] Trover for clover, the clover hay, and clover seed. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Taunton J., at the Dorsetshire Summer Assizes 1832, a verdict was found for the plaintiff subject to the following case :- The plaintiff being possessed of a close under a lease for ninety-nine years, determinable on three lives, in the course of the spring of 1830, sowed it with barley; and in May of the same year, he sowed broad clover seed with the barley. The last of the three lives ex-[106]-pired on the 27th of July 1830, the reversion then being in the defendant. In the autumn of 1830, the plaintiff took the crop of barley, in the mowing of which a little of the clover plant which had sprung up was cut off and taken together with-the barley. In January 1831 the plaintiff gave up the possession of the close to the defendant. According to the usual course of good husbandry, broad clover is sown about April or May, and the crop is fit to be taken for hay about the beginning of June in the following year. The clover in question was cut by the 732 GRAVES V. WELD 5 B. & AD. 107. defendant about the end of May 1831, which was more than a twelvemonth after the seed had been sown. After the barley is cut, the clover is sometimes depastured by sheep in the autumn, whereby the crop is made thicker; if not so fed off, the shoots would be killed by the frost in the winter. In this case the clover was not depastured. Broad clover is sometimes sown by itself; but more frequently with barley, flax, oats, or wheat. The part of the clover plants cut off with the barley at the time of mowing it, makes the barley straw better as fodder; but the clover is sown for hay, or seed, and not to improve the barley straw. When the clover grows up high, it is injurious to the barley. It is the common course of husbandry, to take for hay a second crop of the clover in the autumn of the year after it is sown; and a second crop was so taken by the defendant in the autumn of 1831. But when it is intended for seed, no crop is taken for hay in the summer. Sometimes the clover is left for a third year, but it is not then a good crop. The usual course of husbandry is to plough up the land in the autumn of the second year for wheat. There was no covenant in the lease as to the away [107] going crop, or binding the tenant to any particular course of husbandry. The learned Judge took the opinion of the jury on the two following questions. First, whether the plaintiff received any benefit from taking the clover with the barley straw, sufficient to compensate him for the cost of the clover seed, and the extra expense of sowing and rolling. Secondly, whether a prudent and experienced farmer, knowing that his term was to expire at Michaelmas, would sow clover with his barley in the spring, where there was no covenant that he should do so; and, whether, in the long run, and on the average, he would repay himself in the autumn for the extra cost incurred in the spring. The jury answered both these questions in the negative. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the clover cut in May 1831, as emblements. The case was argued in this term. Follett for the plaintiff. The question is, whether the tenant, whose interest has been put an end to by the death of eestuique-vie, is to have the crop of clover as emblements ? The rule is, that, where a tenant holding for an uncertain time sows and manures the land, or generally bestows labour and expense upon itt for the purpose of raising a crop, he is entitled to that crop as emblements; though he is not entitled to any thing of a permanent nature, as trees planted by him, or their produce. The objection to the right of the tenant in this case will probably be, that the clover was sown early in the May, and not cut till the end of the May of the following year; and [108] that because some of the old authorities, in describing emblements, use the words "annual profits," the tenant here cannot be entitled, the clover not coming under that description. This use of the word "annual" arises from the fact, that the crop sown, in most cases, is taken in the course of a year. There are, however, several sorts of crops which are not cut in that time, as to which, nevertheless, the tenant is entitled to emblements. The principle is thus laid down by Mr. Justice Blaekstone: " If a tenant for his own life sows the lands, and dies before harvest, his executors shall have the emblements or profits of the crop, for the estate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayling v Okey and Others
...crops were growing ciops of glass Emblements cannot be claimed in crops which take more than a year to u rive at matuuty (Graves v Weld (5 B & Ad 105) Kingibmy v Collins (4 Bing 202), which is apparently an authority to the contraiy, cannot be supported Moieovei, the replication does not sh......
-
Mƒ€™NAMARA v APJOHN
...88. Hutchins v. Chambers Supra. King v. Speed Supra. AnonymousENR 3 Salk. 136 (3). Evans v. RobertsENR 15 B. & C. 829. Graves v. WeldENR 5 B. & Ad. 105. 394 CASES AT LAW. M. T. 1850. Exchequer. M`NAMARA v. APJOHN. (Exchequer) IN this case the defendant was a grand jury cess collector, and h......