Plaintiff brought an action in trover against the defendant to'recover damаges for the unlawful conversion of a quantity of wheat.
Mrs. Baughman was the widow оf Jonathan Baughman, and guardian of the estate of the minor heirs. A portion of this estate consisted of the interest of these minors as heirs at law of Jonathan Baughman in the west three-fourths of the southeast quarter of seсtion three, in township four south, range thirteen west. In 1881, Charles Baughman, an adult son, resided on the land as a tenant under his mother as guardian. The plaintiff also worked a part of the land on shares under an agreement with the guardian. In August of that year, at the request of Charles, plaintiff applied to Mrs. Baughman for permission to put in a crop of wheat on shares. There was somе disagreement among the witnesses respecting the exact terms and conditions of the agreement under which the. plaintiff put in the crop of wheat, and the judge so framed his charge as to submit the questions of fact under the varying testimony of the witnesses.
The plaintiff testified that he made the agreement with 'Mrs. Baughman between the 15th and 20th of August, 1881, to the effect that he should go on and plow the ground, furnish the seed, put in the wheat, and harvest it for two-thirds of the crоp, and deliver to her one-tliird in the half-bushel; and soon after that, in consequence of a talk with Mrs. Baughman about buying the place, they went to the judge of probate in order that she might make a petition for •license tо sell; that at the probate office, in presence of the judge, it was again talked over about his putting in the wheat for two-thirds of the crop, and that the judge said she had no right to make such a lease; that notwithstanding he thеn again agreed with Mrs. Baughman that if he bid on the sale more than anybody else he should have the whole crop, and if any one else bid more than hе did, he should have two-thirds thereof; and that under such understanding he continued on and put in the wheat. Mrs. Baughman, who was called by the defendant, agrees substantially with the plaintiff, except that she says she told him if she had the
The license to sell was obtained, and the premises put up and sоld at public auction to the highest bidder, who was the defendant in this case. Thе auctioneer states that he announced at the sale that the рroperty would be sold without reserve, 'except a two-thirds interest in onе-third of the wheat on the ground ; and that the plaintiff and defendant were both present and bid at the sale. The defendant was informed before he bought аt the sale that plaintiff had put the wheat in. When the wheat was ready to bе harvested in 1882 the plaintiff cut it, and while part of it was in the shock and part lying in bundlеs the defendant, without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, hauled it away and locked it up in a barn, and refused to inform plaintiff who had hauled it away or whеre it was, and refused to deliver plaintiff’s share to him on demand.
We have no doubt whatever of the legal right of Mrs. Baughman, as guardian, to make an arrangement of the kind testified to by plaintiff — Campau v. Shaw
We discover no error in the record and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.