65 Vt. 510 | Vt. | 1893
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The decision of this case depends •upon the construction to be given to the written contract between the plaintiff and Chamberlain. By this contract the plaintiff leased the farm and personal property to Chamberlain for three years, subject only to plaintiff’s right to sell the premises during that time. Under this lease Chamberlain went into the exclusive possession and occupancy of the farm and personal property, and was in the possession
The provision in'plaintiff’s lease to Chamberlain,' that the grain raised on the place should be fed out on it, vests no title in the grain in the plaintiff, nor does it afford him any ground for recovery in this action. In Gray v. Stevens, supra, the county court charged the jury that a mere agree-
The plaintiff having no title to ndr possession of the oats, cannot maintain this action.
This view of the case renders it unnecessaiy to pass upon ¡the other questions raised by the exceptions.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.