302 P.2d 999 | Kan. | 1956
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This case grows out of a dispute over rights to the 1955 crop of alfalfa on thirty-five acres owned by plaintiffs.
The action was one to enjoin defendant from harvesting the crop, and he has appealed from an adverse judgment.
Plaintiffs are the owners of a 320-acre farm consisting of improvements, pasture, cultivated land and the thirty-five acres in question. Defendant rented the entire farm, under a written lease, from Au
Defendant complains of the trial court’s findings and conclusions; contends the case was tried on an erroneous theory; that the judgment is contrary to the evidence, and that his motion for a new trial was erroneously overruled. In general, however, we understand the main thread of his argument to be that the rights of the parties to the alfalfa crop were governed by a separate and distinct contract; that his moving from the farm in the spring of 1953 did not affect rights to the alfalfa; that as to it he occupied the status of a tenant from year to year, and that in order to be divested of such rights he was entitled to the statutory notice to quit, which he did not receive.
In our opinion defendant’s contentions cannot be sustained.
From the evidence it is clear that the entire 320 acres were considered and leased as a unit. It is true that the agreement “protected” defendant with respect to the alfalfa by providing that he was entitled to two years’ crop if, in the meantime, tire lease was terminated. As heretofore related, the lease was terminated by mutual agreement of the parties when, in the spring of 1953, defendant moved off. Statutory notice to quit the premises was therefore unnecessary. Defendant harvested the alfalfa in 1953 and 1954, as he had a right to do under the agreement. There is nothing in the record to substantiate his contention that there was a sep
We find no error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.