| Md. | Dec 15, 1846
delivered the opinion of this court.
This was an action of replevin, instituted in Prince George’s county court, to recover from the defendant five thousand pounds of tobacco. To the declaration the defendant pleaded non cepil, property in the defendant, and property in a stranger, on which pleas issues were joined.
At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff below proved, by Thomas H. Kent, that in the year 1839, he rented of the defendant her farm, for the years 1840 and 1841, on the following terms: — He was to give the defendant one-half of every thing that was made; he was to carry all the crops to market, and to pay her one-half of the proceeds after they were sold; that under this contract he worked the farm for the year 1841, and made, among other things, about twenty thousand pounds of tobacco.
The plaintiff further proved by the witness, that in December 1841, he executed the paper, set out in the bill of exceptions, of the 24th of December 1841; that it included the crop of tobacco made by the defendant in 1841, to recover a part of which the present action is brought, and that it was left by him in the possession of the defendant’s agent, and he retained possession of no part of it after the execution of the instrument of writing referred to.
It is apparent from the record, that the paper thus offered in evidence, was not read to the jury. Objection was taken to its admissibility, by the counsel for the defendant, in the form of a prayer, as soon as it was offered, and upon this question the court was divided in opinion.
That this is a correct view of the case, is placed beyond controversy by the language of the court. They say distinctly, that the paper could not go to the jury, and declare, that it was not to be read. In this state of the question, the court below decided correctly, that by a division of opinion, the evidence was lost. The tule is, that when testimony is objected to, it cannot be admitted, unless sustained by the judgment of the court.
If the paper had been read to the jury, without objection, and upon a prayer by the defendant to strike it out of the cause, the court had been divided in opinion, the aspect of the question would have been changed, and the evidence could not have been excluded.
As we think the cpurt below committed no error in the opinion expressed by them, it becomes necessary to consider the question, whether the evidence itself was admissible, to prove title in the appellant to the tobacco in question?
This question is free from difficulty. It is plain, we think, that the contract between Thomas H. Kent and Alice Kent, created the relation of landlady and tenant, and vested in each of them a joint interest in the crops. This being so, assuming that the bill of sale transferred to Dennis W. Ferrall the part of Thomas H. Kent, in the crop of tobacco made by him in
Upon this ground also, we think the evidence offered by the plaintiff below was inadmissible, and that the judgment of the county court must be affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.