Hutchins v. . Hodges

Davis, J. It appears from the testimony of the defendant himself that he leased the land for two years, agreeing to pay one-fourth of the tobacco for each year as rent When was the rent for the first year due? Clearly, the plaintiff was not required to wait till the end of the second year for the rent of the first. But the defendant says that the plaintiff entered in the Pall and sowed grain; that the land was more valuable for tobacco the second year than it was the first, and that he refused to rent the land unless he was to have it for two years. It is admitted that the one-fourth of the crop of tobacco for 1884 (the stipulated rent) was worth *407 $45.00, but the defendant says the plaintiff is not entitled to recover because he entered and sowed wheat, and this deprived him (the defendant) of the advantage of cultivating the land the second year according to his contract; that the agreement to pay rent for the first year was dependent upon the stipulation that he was to have the land for cultivation the second year; and as he was deprived of this by the plaintiff, there was a breach of the contract, and the plaintiff' is not entitled to recover. It does not appear that the defendant objected to the entry by the plaintiff; but assuming that the contract was as the defendant insists it was, and.that he was deprived, by the act of the plaintiff, of the benefit to be derived from the cultivation of the land the second year, he was entitled to such damages for this breach as he could show that he had sustained, but having failed to show that he had sustained any damage, his recovery, if he were bringing an independent action, would be nominal damages only, and there was no error in the ruling of his Honor that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the rent for 1884 without abatement. There was no evidence upon the question of damages to go to the jury — there was no evidence of loss. The doctrine in regard to mutual dependent stipulations stated in the cases of Braswell v. Pope, 82 N. C., and McMahon v. Miller, Ibid., 317, relied on by the defendant, have no application to this case. There is no error. No error. Affirmed.