275 N.W. 843 | Minn. | 1937
In December, 1932, defendant, being then the owner of the farm, conveyed it to the State Bank of Frost and in March, 1933, took a lease from the bank for the year 1933. In March, 1934, plaintiff bought the farm from the trustee of the assets of the bank and in May leased it to defendant for the term from February 28, 1934, to November 15, 1934. In October, 1934, defendant filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy under the Frazier-Lemke amendment to the bankruptcy act in which he listed the farm as part of his assets, and, being so advised, refused to vacate and surrender possession upon expiration of the lease. Upon motion of plaintiff, the farm was dismissed from the bankruptcy proceedings on March 25, 1935, by the referee. Upon the dismissal of the bankruptcy proceedings as to this land, plaintiff recovered a judgment in unlawful detainer proceedings against the defendant for restitution of the farm. In the meantime, defendant applied to the United States district court for review of the order of the referee in bankruptcy dismissing the bankruptcy proceedings as to the farm and obtained from that court an order restraining plaintiff from enforcing the judgment of restitution in the unlawful detainer action pending review of the referee's order. On May 7, 1935, the United States district court affirmed the order of the referee and vacated the restraining order. During the spring of 1935 and while the proceedings in federal court to determine plaintiff's right to the farm were pending, defendant procured seed oats and barley at a cost to him, and of the reasonable value, of $135.25, and sowed this seed on the land. On May 10, 1935, defendant quit the premises and plaintiff entered. Plaintiff thereafter harvested and kept the crop from the farm.
1. It may be stated that, as a general rule, quasi contractual liability for unjust enrichment is based upon the ground that a *205
person receiving a benefit, which it is unjust for him to retain, ought to make restitution or pay the value of the benefit to the party entitled thereto. Todd v. Bettingen,
Plaintiff's retention of the alleged benefits "upon the circumstances of the case" is not unjust. The court found that the benefit to plaintiff was the harvesting of the crop grown from seed furnished by defendant. Defendant has no claim to compensation as a matter of strict legal right. The law gives plaintiff absolute title to the crops without any duty of compensating defendant. Growing crops are part of the land, and, whether tenant or trespasser, an occupant's title to growing crops is dependent upon possession of the land, in the absence of special contract. Loss of possession in law terminates his right to the land and the crops. An owner who obtains possession of his land acquires title to all crops growing on *206
the land at the time, Graceville State Bank v. Hofschild,
Neither does defendant have any claim in conscience and equity. Plaintiff was not guilty of any inequitable conduct. He acquired the crops involuntarily. Prior to any of the acts resulting in the alleged benefits, plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant *207
for restitution of the premises which he would have enforced but for defendant's injunction. The injunction did not give defendant any rights as an occupant of the land except that it prevented plaintiff from enforcing his judgment for restitution. Roehrs v. Thompson,
2. No claim is made that the value of the land was enhanced by the benefits. They can be considered only for that purpose in determining damages. Here the claim is personal against the owner for their reasonable value. To deduct them from his damages *208
is to hold indirectly that he is liable. This is not permissible. Schroeder v. De Graff,
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment without any deductions by way of counterclaim or mitigation of damages.
Reversed with directions to the court below to modify its order for judgment in accordance with this opinion.
