Crews v. Cortez
1908 Tex. LEXIS 247, 102 Tex. 111, 113 S.W. 523 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a breach of a sharecropping contract where a landlord wrongfully evicts the tenant, the tenant's damages are the value of their contractual share of the crop they would have raised, less the expenses the tenant would have incurred to mature and harvest it, and less any amount the tenant earned or could have earned through reasonable diligence after the breach.
Facts:
- On or about January 1, 1905, Ramon Cortez entered into a sharecropping agreement with landowner Cullen Crews to farm approximately 400 acres.
- Under the agreement, Cortez would provide the labor to cultivate the land, Crews would provide tools, teams, feed, and seed, and they would split the resulting crop in half.
- Cortez took possession of the farm, planted crops of corn and cotton, and cultivated them properly.
- On or about June 5, 1905, while the crops were immature and in a fair state of cultivation, Crews's agent, with Crews's knowledge and ratification, used threats and violence to force Cortez and his family to abandon the premises.
- After forcing Cortez off the land, Crews took possession of the growing crops, completed their cultivation, harvested them, and appropriated the proceeds for his own use.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramon Cortez sued Cullen Crews in a trial court for damages resulting from an alleged breach of a rental contract.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for Cortez in the amount of $1500.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict in favor of Cortez.
- Crews, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third District.
- The Court of Civil Appeals, noting a conflict among appellate court decisions on the measure of damages, certified the legal question to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord who wrongfully evicts a sharecropper and takes over the immature crops get to deduct their own subsequent costs for cultivating, gathering, and marketing the crop from the damages owed to the sharecropper?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Williams
No. A landlord who wrongfully breaches a sharecropping contract by evicting the tenant is not entitled to deduct the expenses he subsequently incurs in maturing and harvesting the crop. The court reasoned that the proper measure of damages is not based on the tort of conversion, but on the breach of the executory contract. The goal is to compensate the tenant for the value of the contract, which is the pecuniary benefit he would have received if allowed to fully perform. This is calculated by taking the value of the tenant's stipulated share of the crop he would have produced and subtracting the expenses the tenant himself would have incurred to complete performance, along with any wages the tenant could have earned elsewhere after the breach. The landlord's actual expenses are irrelevant because the tenant is not chargeable with the costs incurred by the breaching party; the tenant's rights are judged by the hypothetical result of his own performance.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between the measure of damages for breach of a sharecropping contract versus the tort of conversion. By rejecting the conversion framework for immature crops under contract, the court prevents the wrongdoing party (the landlord) from shifting their own expenses onto the injured party (the tenant). The decision solidifies a 'value of the bargain' approach, focusing on making the non-breaching party whole based on the expected outcome of their own performance. This precedent protects tenants and sharecroppers from landlords who might try to oust them mid-season and then reduce their liability by charging for the completion of the work.
