Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/121



Appeal from District Court, Renville County; Burr, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant's motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

J. E. Bryans, for appellant.

The tenant is the owner of all of the straw on this land, regardless of such provision in the contract. See the late decision of this Court. Minneapolis Iron Store Co. v. Branum, 36 N. D. 355; 162 N. W. 543.

That it is a general rule of law that the tenant is the owner of the straw. Munier v. Zachary, 114 N. W. 525; 18 L.R.A. (N. S.) 572, and note to this case. Craig v. Dale, found in 37 Am. Dec. 477, holds that the tenant is entitled to all straw as part of the crops on rented lands. Smith v. Boyle, 66 Neb. 823; 92 N. W. 1018; 103 Am. St. Rep. 745.

The following cases are to the same point that the tenant is the owner of the straw. 24 Am. St. Rep. 433; 45 Am. Rep. 277; 59 Am. Dec. 53; 48 Am. Rep. 155; Brigman v. Overstreet, found in 128 Ga. 447, 10 L.R.A. (N. S.) 452, 57 S. E. 454, holds that straw from which the crops is threshed is not manure, but is part of the crop and belongs to the tenant in the same way and to the same extent as the grain. Rank v. Rank, 5 Pa. 211.

P. M. Clark, for respondent.

Imperfect Gift. “Where, however, some essential element necessary to make a perfected gift inter vivos, such as delivery to or acceptance by the donee is lacking, the donor may revoke the gift at any time before it is perfected.” 20 Cyc. p. 1213.

Promise of Gift. “A mere promise or executory agreement to make a gift of property does not amuont to a gift inter vivos and is not enforcible as such.” 20 Cyc. 1214. Luther v. Hunter, Vol. 7 N. Dak. 544; also see extensive note in McWillie v. Van Victor, 72 Am. Dec. 135.

If there was a reversionary interest there was not a gift, but merely an imperfect or incomplete gift and an incomplete gift is in fact and in law no gift at all. Shepard v. Shepard, 129 N. W. 202, (Mich.); Dewey