State v. . JonesState v. . Jones
The defendant contends, first, that his brother, Hardy Jones, was a tenаnt in common of the staves with Jenkins; and that, as his brother was with him at thе time the staves were taken and carried away, and assented to the act, it was not, in law, a larceny. The question for the decision of the Court is, was Hardy Jones a tenant in common with Jenkins in the staves? Jenkins was the sole owner of the land on which the timber trees grew that furnished the entire materials оut of which the staves were manufactured. Hardy Jones did not lеase the land, but he agreed with Jenkins to go on his land, and therе, by himself or servants, to labour in making staves ; and was to have оne-half of the staves manufactured, instead of cash, in payment of his .work and labour. We so understand the case. The language is, “Hardy Jones agreed with one Jenkins to get stavеs upon the land of Jenkins, upon shares, that is, Jones was to have one-half *546 of the staves for getting them.” Evidently as paymеnt, or a mode of payment for his work and labour. If a mart builds a vessel, or makes a coat, with the entire materials, оf another, the vessel or coat, when made, belongs to the owner of the materials. If a man engages anothеr person to come and labour on his farm, as overseer, or cropper, and stipulates with him that he shall have a share of the crop for his labour and attention, thе property in the entire crop is in the employer until thе share of the overseer or cropper is seрarated from the general mass ; and then, and not until that aсt is done, does the title to the share vest or become executed in the labourer. Before the separаtion, the labourer’s right rests upon an executory contrаct with the employer. Before separation, it could not be levied on to satisfy the labourer’s debts. So in the present case, the property in the entire lot of staves, was in Jenkins ; no separation of the quantity for Jones’s labour had taken place. Hardy Jones, was not, as we think, a tеnant in common with Jenkins.
The second objection taken by the defendant’s counsel, that Hardy Jones was bailee of the staves, is, in our opinion, equally untenable. Thе- slave of Jones worked out the staves, and left them at the place where he found the timber, and that was on the lаnd of Jenkins, the owner. Hardy Jones, while his slave was there at work, may be said to have had charge of them, but he was not а bailee: the property and the possession was in Jеnkins the owner. We discover no error in the charge of thе Court. This opinion will be certified to the Superior Court of law for the County of Gates, that it may proceed to judgment.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.