Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

148 Ga. 761

Newton County v. Boyd

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 13, 1919

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1919-02-13

<p>A crop of corn not detached from the soil, whether mature or immature, is a part of the realty, and passes by sale of the land without contractual reservation of the crop. Civil Code, § 3617; Pitts v. Hendrix, 6 Ga. 452; Frost v. Render, 65 Ga. 15; Bagley v. Columbus Southern Ry. Co., 98 a a. 626 (25 S. E. 638, 34 L. R. A. 286, 58 Am. St. R. 335). See also 8 R. C. L. 360, 371, §§ 6, 16; Cobb’s Law of the Farm, 13.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1919-02-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1982

10 state decisions

6019191920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Atkinson, J.

¶1In the spring of the year, the County of Newton by parol contract rented certain land to William Boyd, to be planted in corn, the county to pay for one third of the guano and receive one third of the crop grown; the rent to become due when the crop matured. On November 7, the county sold and conveyed the land in "fee to Boyd, the deed not reserving or otherwise specially mentioning the crop. After the crop was gathered by Boyd, the county brought an equitable suit against him, for an accounting, and to recover the value of one third of the crop. On the trial all the evidence showed that the crop was attached to the soil at the date of the conveyance, but there was a conflict of evidence as to whether the crop was mature at the date of the conveyance. The defendant testified that there was a killing frost in that county on October 19. On November 30, Boyd demanded and received from the county one third of the cost of the fertilizer used on the corn.

¶2The court directed a verdict for the defendant. A motion for new trial was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted.

¶3On application of the principle stated in the headnote to the pleadings and the evidence, there was no error in the direction of the verdict.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except
/148/ga/761 · .json · Public domain