Form No. 12745.1 (Ala. Crim. Code (1896), § 4923, No. 78.) (Commencing as in Form No. 10680, and continuing down to *) John Doe, with the purpose to hinder, delay, or defraud Richard Roe, who had a lawful and valid claim thereto, under a lien created by law for rent or advances, did sell or remove personal property, consisting of one bale of cotton (or other property, as the case may be), of the value of ten dollars, the said John Doe having at the time a knowledge of the existence of such claim, against the (continuing and concluding as in Form No. 10680). Form No. 12746.❜ (Commencing as in Form No. 10689, and continuing down to *) being a lawful tenant of Rebecca M. Daniel, of premises situated in the said county and state, secured from her, guano to the amount of eighteen dollars and ten cents, to be applied to the crops to be raised by him on the rented land during the year 1888, by reason of which the said Rebecca M. Daniel had a statutory lien upon said crops for said advance. That the said defendant did, on the first day of October, in said county, unlawfully sell and dispose of one bale of cotton raised on the said land of the said Rebecca M. Daniel, by him as her tenant during said year, without the consent of said Rebecca M. Daniel, and without paying for said guano, to her injury and with intent to defraud the said Rebecca M. Daniel, whereby she sustained a loss, contrary to (continuing and concluding as in Form No. 10689). Form No. 12747.3 (Precedent in State v. Walker, 87 N. Car. 541.)* [(Commencement as in Form No. 10711)]5 present that on the 24th of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, at and in the county of Transylvania aforesaid, by contract between them, one W. S. Ashworth demised to J. R. Walker, late of 1 said county, for agricultural purposes, a certain messuage and parcel of land there situate, to have and to hold the same, to the said J. R. Walker for a certain term of years, to wit, for the term of one [year]1 then next ensuing, yielding and paying therefor to the said W. Š. Ashworth the yearly rent of eighty-two bushels of corn, and in and by said contract of lease it was not agreed by and between the said parties thereto, that the crop which might be raised, grown and made on said messuage and parcel of land during said term by the said J. R. Walker, should not be deemed and held to be vested in possession in the said W. S. Ashworth, before and until the said rent was satisfied and paid to him; and by virtue of said demise, the said J.R. Walker, then and there entered into said messuage and parcel of land and was possessed thereof from thenceforth until the 24th day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, in the county aforesaid, and during the period of time last aforesaid, raised, grew and made on said messuage and parcel of land, a certain crop of corn and had the same in his possession. And afterwards, and before satisfying the lien of his aforesaid rent, which the said W. S. Ashworth had on said crop of corn, on the 24th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, at and in the county. aforesaid, the said J. R. Walker did unlawfully and wilfully remove from and off and outside of said messuage and parcel of land, fifty bushels of corn then and there being found, the same then and there being part of the crop aforesaid which J. R. Walker had raised, grown and made on said messuage and parcel of land, during the aforesaid term, while the said messuage and parcel of land was in his possession as aforesaid, without having first obtained the consent of W. S. Ashworth to such removal, and without first having given the said S. W. Ashworth, or any agent of his, [five days']2 notice of such intended removal of said fifty bushels of corn, contrary to the form [(continuing and concluding as in Form No. 10711).]3 Form No. 12748.4 (Commencing as in Form No. 10711, and continuing down to *) did, by a certain agreement, rent from one John Doe certain land there situate, for agricultural purposes, and during the term of his said renting did raise certain crops on said land; and that the said Richard Roe afterwards, to wit: on the first day of September, A. D. 1899, in said county, unlawfully and wilfully did remove from said land a part of the crops raised during the term aforesaid, on said land, to wit: one hundred and fifty bushels of corn in the ear, without the consent of the said John Doe, and without giving him, the said John Doe, five 1. The omission of the word "year" was held, on arrest of judgment, not to vitiate the indictment. 2. An objection, that the bill did not allege that defendant failed to give the five days' notice of his intended removal of the crop, was held not sustainable. The charge that the defendant removed the crop" without first having given the said Ashworth or any agent of his, notice of any intended removal," negatives the five days' notice required by the statute as conclusively as if it had followed the very words of the statute. 3. The matter to be supplied within [] will not be found in the reported case. 4. North Carolina. - Code (1883), § 1759. See also, generally, supra, note 1, p. 155. days' notice of such intended removal, and without satisfying all liens held by said John Doe on said crops, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. And the jurors aforesaid upon their oath do further present: That on the thirty-first day of December, A. D. 1898, in the county of Mecklenburg, state of North Carolina, one Richard Roe, by a certain agreement, did become a cropper of one John Doe, and then and thereupon did as a cropper cultivate certain land of said John Doe there situate; and that the said Richard Roe afterwards, to wit: on the first day of September, A. D. 1899, in the said county, a certain part of the crops raised on said land whilst the same was cultivated as aforesaid, to wit, one hundred and fifty bushels of corn in the ear, did unlawfully and wilfully remove from the said land without the consent of the said John Doe and without giving him, the said John Doe, five days' notice of intended removal, and without satisfying all liens held by the said John Doe on said crops, contrary to the form (continuing and concluding as in Form No. 10711). V. ACTIONS ON CONTRACT OTHER THAN FOR RENT. 1. By Landlord Against Tenant.1 a. Failure to Board Landlord. Form No. 12749.2 (Commencement as in Form No. 6945) in a plea of assumpsit for that. the plaintiff on the first day of January, A. D. 1832, leased to the defendant certain premises belonging to plaintiff and situate on the corner of High street and Maple street, in the town of Rumney, in said county, for the term of one year, the consideration of such lease being the promise by the defendant to board the plaintiff during all of said term, in pursuance of which lease defendant entered and occupied the said premises during said term and until the expiration thereof, yet the defendant, though requested, did not board the plaintiff during a part of said term, to wit, during the months of November and December, but refused so to do, to the damage (continuing and concluding as in Form No. 6945). b. Failure to Make Improvements. (Commencement as in Form No. 5909.) 1. Requisites of Complaint, Declaration or Petition. For the formal parts of a complaint, declaration or petition in a particular jurisdiction see the titles COMPLAINTS, vol. 4, p. 1019; DECLARATIONS, vol. 6, p. 244. 2. This declaration is based upon the facts in Keyes v. Dearborn, 12 N. H. 52. In this case the verdict for the plain tiff was set aside and a new trial granted for the reason that the proof did not support the declaration, inasmuch as there was a variance between the allegation and the proof as to the time of the commencement of the term of the lease. 3. This complaint is substantially the one filed in Gibbs v. Dickson, 33 First Paragraph - The plaintiff, William Dickson, states that the defendant, Thomas Gibbs, is justly indebted to him in the sum of $1,000 damages, sustained by the plaintiff for and on account of the nonperformance of the obligations, stipulations and covenants on the part of said defendant of a certain written contract, covenant and agreement made and entered into by and between the plaintiff and defendant, at Crittenden county, state of Arkansas, on the 18th day of February, 1874, (the original agreement is herewith filed marked exhibit A, and made part of this complaint,) in and by which agreement and covenant in writing, the said defendant rented and leased from the plaintiff (through John L. Strong, plaintiff's agent,) the certain plantation of the plaintiff known as the Holly Grove plantation in said county, to farm the same for the year 1874, the said defendant and plaintiff covenanting and agreeing upon the following terms and conditions, to wit: (Here set out stipulations of the lease). Second Paragraph - And the plaintiff avers that under and in virtue of said covenant in writing the said defendant did enter in and upon the lands so leased, and did use, have and enjoy the same for the whole length of time specified and agreed upon, and that plaintiff on his part hath in all things performed his part of the covenants aforesaid. Third Paragraph-But the plaintiff avers that the said defendant hath not kept and performed his part of the covenants and stipulations aforesaid, but on the contrary the said defendant hath failed, neglected and refused to keep and perform his covenants and agreement, and hath broken the same in this, that the said defendant failed, refused and neglected to make the fence above stipulated for, and to place the fencing around the place as by contract he was bound to do; and the said defendant hath also failed to clear the land of bushes and grubs, and to cultivate the land in the manner stipulated for, together with other and further breaches of his said covenant by nonperformance of the same, by reason of all of which the plaintiff hath sustained damages to amount of $1,000, which amount the plaintiff believes he ought to recover of and from the defendant. Fourth Paragraph-And the plaintiff further states, that after the making of said special contract in writing, and after the said defendant had used, occupied and had the benefit of said lands and premises under the lease and covenant, to wit: on the tenth day of July, 1875, Ark. 107. Demurrer to the complaint was overruled. But, while the complaint was held good, the court said it was arbitrarily or fancifully paragraphed, as it contained in the code sense but two paragraphs, one upon the lease and the other upon an alleged account stated between the parties. The objection that the complaint commenced in debt and concluded in covenant was held not valid, under the code pleading, which abolished the commonlaw classification of action. It was also held in this case that the joinder of a count upon the sealed lease with a count upon an account stated was proper under the code. It would have been held proper even had the common-law system of pleading prevailed, because private seals have been abolished in Arkansas. But where private seals have not been abolished and the common-law system of pleading prevails, covenant would have to be brought on the sealed lease, and as covenant can be brought only on a sealed instrument, the joinder of a count upon a sealed lease with a count upon a verbal admission of a sum due, as in this case, would be bad. he, the said plaintiff, by John L. Strong, his agent, and the said defendant did settle and adjust all of the said matters above complained of, which resulted in a balance due the plaintiff of the sum of $1,000, which the said defendant agreed to pay, but afterwards refused. And so the plaintiff avers that there is due him from the defendant the sum of $1,000 as aforesaid, for which amount he prays judgment against the defendant, and for general relief, (continuing and concluding as in Form No. 5909). c. Failure to Repair. (1) DEFECTIVE Roof. Form No. 12751. (Conn. Prac. Act (1879), p. 74, No. 109.) (Commencement as in Form No. 5912.) 1. On June 1st, 1878, the plaintiff and the defendant signed and sealed a lease, by which the plaintiff leased to the defendant, for five years from said date, his dwelling-house, with stable and sheds attached, in Orange. 2. The defendant covenanted in said lease that he would, during said term, at his own cost, keep said premises in good repair, and at the expiration of said term leave said premises in as good condition as he received the same, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 3. The defendant occupied said premises during said term, and during his occupancy some of the shingles on the roof of said house became rotten and broken, so as to admit the rain-water, and the defendant has never repaired the same. 4. By reason thereof the plastering upon the walls of said house has been injured, and in many places has fallen down. The plaintiff claims $500 damages. (Continuing and concluding as in Form No. 5912.) } (2) DESTROYED PREMISES. Form No. 12752.1 State of Mississippi, County of Lowndes. In the Circuit Court, October Term, A. D. 1857. Harriet Abby, the plaintiff in this case, complains of Thomas Billups and (naming other defendants), all of said county and state, and says, that the said defendants constitute and are the board of trustees of the Collegiate High School of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows in the city of Columbus, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Mississippi; that as such 1. This declaration is based upon the facts in Abby v. Billups, 35 Miss. 618. Demurrer to this declaration was sustained in the lower court, but the high court of errors and appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause, holding that the board of trustees in making the alleged contract acted within the limits of their charter powers and that therefore the demurrer to the complaint was improperly sustained. |