Tignor v. Toney
1896 Tex. App. LEXIS 106, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 518, 35 S.W. 881 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a sharecropping agreement establishes the parties as tenants in common of the crops, and the landowner wrongfully ousts the sharecropper mid-season, the sharecropper's measure of damages is their share of the value of the fully matured crop, not merely the value of the growing crop at the time of the ouster.
Facts:
- Ellis, a landowner, entered into an oral contract with the appellee for her to cultivate his land for the year 1894.
- Under the agreement, Ellis would furnish the land, tools, teams, and feed.
- The appellee agreed to plant, cultivate, and gather a crop of corn and cotton.
- The parties agreed to split the resulting crop, with each receiving one-half.
- After the appellee planted the crops and they were growing, Ellis's agent, Tignor, refused her access to the farm equipment on May 15, 1894.
- Tignor compelled the appellee to leave the premises and took possession of the farm and the growing crops himself.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee (plaintiff) sued Ellis and his agent, Tignor, in the trial court in Waller County to recover her share of the crops and for exemplary damages.
- Ellis (defendant), a resident of another county, filed a plea in abatement arguing the case should be heard in his home county of Travis.
- The trial court overruled Ellis's plea.
- The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the appellee.
- The trial court entered a judgment against Ellis and Tignor for the value of the appellee's share of the crop and for exemplary damages.
- Ellis and Tignor (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a sharecropper who is a tenant in common of a crop is wrongfully ousted by the landowner after crops have been planted, is the sharecropper's measure of damages limited to the value of the growing crop at the time of the ouster?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrett, Chief Justice
No. When a sharecropper is wrongfully ousted, their damages are not limited to the value of the crop at the time of the breach. The contract created a tenancy in common, giving the appellee a property interest in the crops themselves. The court distinguished this case from those where crops are destroyed, where damages would be measured at the time of destruction. Here, the crops matured after the appellee was ousted. The court reasoned that a rightful owner can retake illegally held personal property in any new, more valuable form into which it has been put by the labor of the wrongdoer. Because Tignor willfully disregarded the appellee's rights as a cotenant, he had no equitable claim to be compensated for the labor he expended to mature the crops. Therefore, the appellee is entitled to her share of the crop's value at maturity, as if suing for partition or conversion of the final product.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal status of certain sharecroppers as tenants in common, granting them a property interest in the crops rather than just a contractual claim for labor. By rejecting the measure of damages at the time of breach, the court prevents landowners from unjustly enriching themselves by ousting a sharecropper and reaping the full benefit of the matured crop. This precedent protects the value of the sharecropper's labor and investment by tying their recovery to the final outcome of the harvest, thus influencing how damages are calculated in similar agricultural contract disputes.
