• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 The contract
 Kinds of contractural arrangem...
 Kinds of farm tenancy
 Rights of the landlord
 Rights of a tenant
 Rights of the employer under a...
 Rights of sharecropper under a...
 Citations






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 586
Title: The laws of farm tenancy and sharecropping in Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027505/00001
 Material Information
Title: The laws of farm tenancy and sharecropping in Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 48 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Greenman, J. R
English, James J
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1957
 Subjects
Subject: Sharecropping -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Farm tenancy -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
law report or digest   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Table of citations: p. 38-47.
Statement of Responsibility: J.R. Greenman and James J. English.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "Publication no. 26, Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee"-- T.p.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027505
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000926795
oclc - 18283252
notis - AEN7495

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
    The contract
        Page 4
    Kinds of contractural arrangements
        Page 5
        Tenancy
            Page 5
        Sharecropping
            Page 5
        Mixed tenancy-sharecropping
            Page 6
        Tenancy in common
            Page 6
        Partners
            Page 7
    Kinds of farm tenancy
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Tenancy at will
            Page 8
        Tenancy for a term
            Page 8
        Tenancy at sufferance
            Page 8
    Rights of the landlord
        Page 10
        Rent
            Page 11
        Lien for rent
            Page 12
        Lien for advances
            Page 13
        Enforcement of liens for rent and advances
            Page 13
            Page 14
        Criminal action against tenant
            Page 15
        Possession upon termination
            Page 16
        Removal of the tenant
            Page 17
        Damages against the tenant
            Page 18
            Page 19
        Criminal action against tenant for a term who retains possession after termination and notice
            Page 20
        Premises not materially changed by the use of the tenant
            Page 20
    Rights of a tenant
        Page 21
        Possession of the land
            Page 22
        Ownership and possession of produce raised by the tenant
            Page 23
        Ownership of crops growing on the land at termination of lease
            Page 24
        Timber for agricultureal needs of rented lands
            Page 25
        Assignment or sublease of tenancy
            Page 25
    Rights of the employer under a sharecropping agreement
        Page 26
        Direction of sharecropper's activities
            Page 27
        Discharge of the sharecropper's activities
            Page 27
        Possession of the land
            Page 27
            Page 28
        Ownership and control of the produce
            Page 29
        Division of the produce
            Page 29
        Recovery of the produce
            Page 30
        Criminal actions against sharecropper
            Page 31
    Rights of sharecropper under a sharecropping agreement
        Page 32
        Share of the farm produce
            Page 33
        Lien for labor against employer's property
            Page 33
            Page 34
        Enforcement of lien against employer's property
            Page 35
            Page 36
        Breach of contract suit against employer
            Page 37
    Citations
        Page 38
        Table of citations
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida







Bulletin 586


June 1957


(Publication No. 26, Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee)









THE LAWS OF FARM TENANCY

AND


SHARECROPPING IN FLORIDA




J. R. GREENMAN and JAMES J. ENGLISH


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
J. R. BECKENBACH, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
In Cooperation With
Agricultural Research Service, Production Economics Branch, Southern
Field Research Section, The Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee.
and the College of Law, the University of Florida




/DO




AGRI-
CULTURAL
LIS I TENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ... .......... ....... ... ................ 3
THE CONTRACT .............................................................................. 4
KINDS OF CONTRACTURAL ARRANGEMENTS -------. .................................. 5
Tenancy ........----------- -..........------.........--. .......------ 5
Sharecropping ...................... .. .---.. --... ...-- ... .......-.... 5
Mixed Tenancy-Sharecropping ... ------............. ... ........ ....... .... 6
Tenancy in Common ------...................--------....................................... 6
P partners ......................-..-.... ... ........... ..... .......... ............ ............ 7
KINDS OF FARM TENANCY ....... -... ............. -....-.......... 8
Tenancy at W ill ................. -... ............ .............. 8
Tenancy for a Term ........... -..................... ....... ... .... ............ 8
Tenancy at Sufferance .....................--------...... ------ 8
RIGHTS OF THE LANDLORD ........- .-.~...-------------------------.... 10
Rent .............. ....... ------------ 11
Lien for Rent ................................ ------------------ --- .-- .---- 12
Lien for Advances ...--..................... -.................----.. ----.----- ---.... 13
Enforcement of Liens for Rent and Advances .................................. 13
Criminal Action Against Tenant ........................................ .... ........ 15
Possession Upon Termination ................... .......---- -16
Removal of the Tenant ................... -------------...... 17
Damages Against the Tenant ..................-- --- .........--- -..........----...--- ... 18
Criminal Action Against Tenant for a Term Who Retains
Possession after Termination and Notice ........................... .......-- ... 20
Premises Not Materially Changed by the Use of the Tenant -.......... 20
RIGHTS OF A TENANT ...................--...-- ..--------------......... 21
Possession of the Land ..................................................----------------- 22
Ownership and Possession of Produce Raised by the Tenant............... 23
Ownership of Crops Growing on the Land at Termination of Lease ..... 24
Timber for Agricultural Needs of Rented Lands ..................-...-......... 25
Assignment or Sublease of Tenancy ...................--........---......--- .. 25
RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYER UNDER A SHARECROPPING AGREEMENT............... 26
Direction of Sharecropper's Activities .........................------.............---- 27
Discharge of the Sharecropper Before End of Contract Period ........ 27
Possession of the Land .................... ....................................... 27
Ownership and Control of the Produce ......--.----......-..... -- 29
Division of the Produce .......................... .. ............. 29
Recovery of the Produce ..-............. -.........- ....... .... 30
Criminal Actions Against Sharecropper ...................................... 31
RIGHTS OF SHARECROPPER UNDER A SHARECROPPING AGREEMENT ................ 32
Share of the Farm Produce ...........-...-...................... 33
Lien for Labor Against Employer's Property ---.............. ............. 33
Enforcement of Lien Against Employer's Property ............................. 35
Breach of Contract Suit Against Employer ........................................ 37
Criminal Action Against Employer .........................-....... 38
CITATIONS -........ ......----..- .....-----..--....- ..... ------..... 38










THE LAWS OF FARM TENANCY AND

SHARECROPPING IN FLORIDA1

J. R. GREENMAN and JAMES J. ENGLISH 2

INTRODUCTION
Farm landlords, tenants and sharecroppers in Florida have
legal rights and obligations arising out of their rental and share-
cropping agreements and out of the laws of the State. Fre-
quently, rights and obligations arising out of the laws of the
State are overlooked. If there is an oversight on the part of one
or both parties to a tenancy or sharecropping arrangement, they
may act in a manner contrary to their legal rights and obliga-
tions. Moreover, where the parties to a tenancy or sharecropping
agreement are aware of their rights and obligations they can
knowingly include provisions in the agreement that expressly
modify rights and obligations that otherwise would be imposed
by law or custom.
The more important rights and obligations of the landlord,
tenant, employer and sharecropper are set forth in this bulletin.
Many of these rights and obligations are defined in the Florida
statutes and in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida.
On the other hand, some of the rights and obligations have not
been defined in the Florida statutes and, because cases involving
them have not come before it, they have not been defined by the
Supreme Court of Florida. Whenever the Supreme Court of
Florida is called upon to interpret the law not covered by the
Florida statutes or a prior decision of the court, it looks for
guidance to the decisions of the courts of other states-particu-
larly Southern States. Thus, when important rights and obli-
gations relative to landlords, tenants, or sharecroppers are not
covered by the Florida Statutes or decisions of the Supreme
Court of Florida, the decisions of the courts of other states have

SNumerals in parentheses in connection with statements in the text
bulletin refer to citations in a table near the end. These citations set forth
the law on which the statements are based.
SJ. R. Greenman, Professor of Agricultural Economics, College of
Agriculture, University of Florida, member of Florida Bar; James J.
English, Agricultural Legal Research Assistant, Florida Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, member of Florida Bar.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


been used as a guide in suggesting the probable nature of such
rights and obligations in Florida. The laws of farm tenancy and
sharecropping as described in this bulletin may be changed by
later revisions of the Florida statutes and by subsequent deci-
sions of the Supreme Court of Florida.
It is hoped that this information will be helpful to farmers
in better understanding their rights and obligations as landlords,
tenants and sharecroppers. However, there is no good substitute
for a qualified attorney. Each tenancy and sharecropping ar-
rangement involves its own set of circumstances that require
expert legal interpretations. The generalized statement of the
law contained in this bulletin is intended to acquaint farmers
with the scope of the law rather than to serve as a specific legal
guide. In the preparation of lease and sharecropping agree-
ments, in asserting legal rights or in carrying out obligations
about which there is a possibility of serious doubt or controversy,
the farmer will be wise to consult an attorney.

THE CONTRACT

All farm tenancy and sharecropping arrangements are based
on agreements between the parties involved (1). The agree-
ment may be in writing or it may be by word of mouth (2).
Sometimes the written or oral agreement may not expressly
cover all of the vital phases of landlord, tenant and sharecropper
relationships. When this is so, the courts in the interest of
justice may find that there is an implied contract covering such
vital relationships, or the law itself may impose certain rights
and obligations (3).
Oral agreements frequently lead to misunderstandings and
are subject to definite limitations by the statutes of Florida.
For example, an oral lease in Florida automatically becomes
what is designated as a "tenancy at will" by Florida statute (4).
This kind of tenancy is very similar to the one called a periodic
tenancy at common law, and it has certain legal characteristics
that are discussed later in this bulletin. Moreover, a lease for
more than one year is not effective as such unless it is in writing,
and signed by the owner of the land in the presence of two wit-
nesses who also sign (5). Farmers, in order to be sure that their
lease or sharecropper agreements actually carry out their in-
tentions, should have them prepared in writing. This should
be done in a manner that conforms with the laws of Florida.






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


In any event, the farmer will want to know his legal rights and
obligations under a tenancy or sharecropping arrangement. For
this purpose he will need to consider both the contract on which
the arrangement is based and the laws of tenancy and share-
cropping.

KINDS OF CONTRACTURAL ARRANGEMENTS
Several different kinds of contractual arrangements are en-
tered into by those who own land (landowners) and those who
do the actual work of farming the land (cultivators). For ex-
ample, the arrangement may be a tenancy, a sharecropping, a
mixed tenancy-sharecropping, a tenancy in common with respect
to the crops and livestock produced, or a partnership. It is nec-
essary that the parties to such arrangements know the kind of
arrangement they have entered into in order that they can know
what their rights and obligations are. For example, the right
of possession and control of the produce raised normally belongs
to the cultivator under a tenancy, to the landowner under a
sharecropping arrangement and to both parties jointly under a
tenancy in common.
A tenancy exists when the cultivator (a) is self-employed,
that is, supervises his own work and farming operations; (b)
has the right of possession and control of the land and produce
raised on the land (6) ; and (c) provides not only his labor but
also the machinery and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other ma-
terials used in farming the land (7). A very important charac-
teristic of a tenancy arrangement is the fact that the cultivator
is his own boss, that is, supervises his own work and farming
operations. Of course, as in the case of rented urban property,
the landowner may have some authority as to the manner in
which his property is used; but if the cultivator is essentially
his own boss, then the relationship will be a tenancy (8).
A sharecropping arrangement exists when (a) the cultiva-
tor's work and farming operations are under the supervision of
the landowner (9), (b) right of possession and control of the
land and produce belongs to the landowner-not to the cultiva-
tor (10); (c) the cultivator provides only his labor while the
landowner furnishes not only his land but also the machinery
and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other materials used in farm-
ing the land (11) ; (d) the cultivator is paid for his labor with
a part of the produce he helps to raise (12). A very important
characteristic of a sharecropping arrangement is the fact that






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


In any event, the farmer will want to know his legal rights and
obligations under a tenancy or sharecropping arrangement. For
this purpose he will need to consider both the contract on which
the arrangement is based and the laws of tenancy and share-
cropping.

KINDS OF CONTRACTURAL ARRANGEMENTS
Several different kinds of contractual arrangements are en-
tered into by those who own land (landowners) and those who
do the actual work of farming the land (cultivators). For ex-
ample, the arrangement may be a tenancy, a sharecropping, a
mixed tenancy-sharecropping, a tenancy in common with respect
to the crops and livestock produced, or a partnership. It is nec-
essary that the parties to such arrangements know the kind of
arrangement they have entered into in order that they can know
what their rights and obligations are. For example, the right
of possession and control of the produce raised normally belongs
to the cultivator under a tenancy, to the landowner under a
sharecropping arrangement and to both parties jointly under a
tenancy in common.
A tenancy exists when the cultivator (a) is self-employed,
that is, supervises his own work and farming operations; (b)
has the right of possession and control of the land and produce
raised on the land (6) ; and (c) provides not only his labor but
also the machinery and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other ma-
terials used in farming the land (7). A very important charac-
teristic of a tenancy arrangement is the fact that the cultivator
is his own boss, that is, supervises his own work and farming
operations. Of course, as in the case of rented urban property,
the landowner may have some authority as to the manner in
which his property is used; but if the cultivator is essentially
his own boss, then the relationship will be a tenancy (8).
A sharecropping arrangement exists when (a) the cultiva-
tor's work and farming operations are under the supervision of
the landowner (9), (b) right of possession and control of the
land and produce belongs to the landowner-not to the cultiva-
tor (10); (c) the cultivator provides only his labor while the
landowner furnishes not only his land but also the machinery
and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other materials used in farm-
ing the land (11) ; (d) the cultivator is paid for his labor with
a part of the produce he helps to raise (12). A very important
characteristic of a sharecropping arrangement is the fact that






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


In any event, the farmer will want to know his legal rights and
obligations under a tenancy or sharecropping arrangement. For
this purpose he will need to consider both the contract on which
the arrangement is based and the laws of tenancy and share-
cropping.

KINDS OF CONTRACTURAL ARRANGEMENTS
Several different kinds of contractual arrangements are en-
tered into by those who own land (landowners) and those who
do the actual work of farming the land (cultivators). For ex-
ample, the arrangement may be a tenancy, a sharecropping, a
mixed tenancy-sharecropping, a tenancy in common with respect
to the crops and livestock produced, or a partnership. It is nec-
essary that the parties to such arrangements know the kind of
arrangement they have entered into in order that they can know
what their rights and obligations are. For example, the right
of possession and control of the produce raised normally belongs
to the cultivator under a tenancy, to the landowner under a
sharecropping arrangement and to both parties jointly under a
tenancy in common.
A tenancy exists when the cultivator (a) is self-employed,
that is, supervises his own work and farming operations; (b)
has the right of possession and control of the land and produce
raised on the land (6) ; and (c) provides not only his labor but
also the machinery and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other ma-
terials used in farming the land (7). A very important charac-
teristic of a tenancy arrangement is the fact that the cultivator
is his own boss, that is, supervises his own work and farming
operations. Of course, as in the case of rented urban property,
the landowner may have some authority as to the manner in
which his property is used; but if the cultivator is essentially
his own boss, then the relationship will be a tenancy (8).
A sharecropping arrangement exists when (a) the cultiva-
tor's work and farming operations are under the supervision of
the landowner (9), (b) right of possession and control of the
land and produce belongs to the landowner-not to the cultiva-
tor (10); (c) the cultivator provides only his labor while the
landowner furnishes not only his land but also the machinery
and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other materials used in farm-
ing the land (11) ; (d) the cultivator is paid for his labor with
a part of the produce he helps to raise (12). A very important
characteristic of a sharecropping arrangement is the fact that







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


the sharecropper's work and farming operations are supervised
by the landowner (13). Frequently, a laborer who is hired for
cash, particularly a skilled laborer, is allowed considerable lati-
tude in the performance of his work. Similarly, under a share-
cropping arrangement, the cultivator may be permitted to use
his own judgment in such things as the manner in which the
crops are to be planted and cultivated, and the livestock raised
(14). In spite of this, the cultivator will be no less a laborer
(sharecropper) if he is subject to the general guidance and super-
vision of the landowner, and the relationship will be a share-
cropping.
The provisions of an agreement may make the cultivator a
tenant as regards his house or part of the farm and a sharecrop-
per as to the rest of the farm; then, his rights and obligations
will be partly those of a tenant and partly those of a sharecrop-
per. In this situation a mixed tenancy-sharecropping exists.
Where both the cultivator and the landowner provide part
of the machinery and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other ma-
terials used in farming the land, they may be what is known at
law as tenants in common (co-owners) of the produce (15). If
this is their status, then neither party has the exclusive right
of possession and control of the produce, as is the case in a
tenancy or sharecropping arrangement (16). Either party may
divide off and sell or otherwise dispose of his share (17); but
one party may not sell or otherwise dispose of the share of the
other without his consent. If one disposes of the share of the
other, then he will be accountable to the other for that party's
share (18).
In an 1879 decision (19), the Supreme Court of Florida des-
ignated a cultivator and landowner as tenants in common of pro-
duce raised under an arrangement by the terms of which the
landowner furnished the land, the cultivator the labor, and both
shared in furnishing the power, machinery and equipment, seed
and other materials used in farming the land. Although not
expressly stated in the opinion, the court's interpretation re-
garding the status of the cultivator and landlord probably rested
upon the fact that both parties made substantial contributions
of materials and other things (other than land and labor). Thus,
if both the cultivator and landowner contribute a substantial
part of the materials and other things (other than land and
labor) used in farming the land, it seems likely that they will
be tenants in common of the produce. On the other hand, if







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


the sharecropper's work and farming operations are supervised
by the landowner (13). Frequently, a laborer who is hired for
cash, particularly a skilled laborer, is allowed considerable lati-
tude in the performance of his work. Similarly, under a share-
cropping arrangement, the cultivator may be permitted to use
his own judgment in such things as the manner in which the
crops are to be planted and cultivated, and the livestock raised
(14). In spite of this, the cultivator will be no less a laborer
(sharecropper) if he is subject to the general guidance and super-
vision of the landowner, and the relationship will be a share-
cropping.
The provisions of an agreement may make the cultivator a
tenant as regards his house or part of the farm and a sharecrop-
per as to the rest of the farm; then, his rights and obligations
will be partly those of a tenant and partly those of a sharecrop-
per. In this situation a mixed tenancy-sharecropping exists.
Where both the cultivator and the landowner provide part
of the machinery and equipment, seed, fertilizer and other ma-
terials used in farming the land, they may be what is known at
law as tenants in common (co-owners) of the produce (15). If
this is their status, then neither party has the exclusive right
of possession and control of the produce, as is the case in a
tenancy or sharecropping arrangement (16). Either party may
divide off and sell or otherwise dispose of his share (17); but
one party may not sell or otherwise dispose of the share of the
other without his consent. If one disposes of the share of the
other, then he will be accountable to the other for that party's
share (18).
In an 1879 decision (19), the Supreme Court of Florida des-
ignated a cultivator and landowner as tenants in common of pro-
duce raised under an arrangement by the terms of which the
landowner furnished the land, the cultivator the labor, and both
shared in furnishing the power, machinery and equipment, seed
and other materials used in farming the land. Although not
expressly stated in the opinion, the court's interpretation re-
garding the status of the cultivator and landlord probably rested
upon the fact that both parties made substantial contributions
of materials and other things (other than land and labor). Thus,
if both the cultivator and landowner contribute a substantial
part of the materials and other things (other than land and
labor) used in farming the land, it seems likely that they will
be tenants in common of the produce. On the other hand, if







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


the cultivator or landowner makes only a very minor contribu-
tion of materials and other things it is possible that the parties
will not be tenants in common of the produce and that the re-
lationship will be a tenancy or a sharecropping in all respects.
Although the cultivator and landowner may be tenants in
common of the produce, it seems likely that their rights and
obligations in other respects may be the same as exist under a
tenancy, a sharecropping or a partnership. If the other pro-
visions of the arrangement make the cultivator his own boss,
and if the cultivator has the right of possession and control of
the land, the rights and obligations of the parties in all other
respects-except for their tenancy in common of the produce-
are probably the same as under a tenancy. On the other hand,
if the other provisions of the arrangement make the landowner
the supervisor of the cultivator's work and farming operations
and if the landowner has the right of possession and control of
the land, the rights of the parties likely are the same as under
a sharecropping arrangement except for their rights as tenants
in common of the produce. If the agreement makes the cultiva-
tor and landowner partners in other respects, however, then
their rights in other respects will, of course, be those of partners.
Partners in the business of farming share in the profits and
losses. In the absence of express agreement to the contrary, they
also share in the administration or control of the business, and
each partner has a common right of possession of the partner-
ship property together with the other partner (20). Of vital im-
portance is the fact that one member of a partnership can incur
partnership debts and obligations that bind the other part-
ner (21).
Parties to a tenancy or sharecropping agreement, not in-
tended as a partnership, should avoid acts that could reasonably
lead other persons to believe the arrangement is a partner-
ship. Otherwise, one party to a tenancy or sharecropping agree-
ment may be held liable for obligations incurred by the other
party in the operation of the farm (22). For example, suppose
that a landowner who has entered into a tenancy agreement with
a cultivator knowingly permits the cultivator to represent him-
self as a partner of the landowner in dealing with a fertilizer
dealer. Then, the landowner can be held liable for debts to the
fertilizer dealer that the cultivator incurred in so representing
himself. As one precaution, though not a guaranty in this con-







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


nection, it is desirable to specify in the tenancy or sharecrop-
ping agreement that it is not intended to create a partnership.

KINDS OF FARM TENANCY
Three kinds of tenancy are recognized under the laws of
Florida:
1. Tenancy at Will (23) (known as Periodic Tenancy at
Common Law).
2. Tenancy for a Term (24).
3. Tenancy at Sufferance (25).
Of these, tenancy at will, which includes all tenancies created
by oral lease agreement, is the prevailing kind of farm tenancy
in Florida. Tenancy for a term, which is created by written
lease contract, is next in importance. And, there may possibly
be a few farm tenancies at sufferance in the State.
Both landlord and tenant should recognize the kind of ten-
ancy under which they are operating in order to know the kind
of notice required to terminate the tenancy, since it is upon ter-
mination that the landlord's right to enter and take possession
arises. Especially is this true for farmers whose tenancy is at
will (known as periodic tenancy at common law3), since in this
instance advance notice of termination of the tenancy must be
given by the landlord or tenant a specified time prior to the end
of the lease period (26). The length of the notice period required
depends upon whether the rent is payable annually, seasonally,
or at some other periodic interval. Many farm tenancies in
Florida are created by oral agreements with rent payable an-
nually. Such tenancies under the Laws of Florida are known as
tenancies at will from year to year (27). They require three
months notice of the termination before the end of the lease
year (28). Other tenancies at will in Florida are created by
oral agreements with rent payable at the end of the harvest
season for all crops or at more than one time during the year
as commodities produced on the farm are marketed. Reasonable
notice of termination would probably be required for tenancies
at will of this kind (29), but the Supreme Court of Florida has
not defined what that notice is under these circumstances. Land-
lords and tenants should realize that under a tenancy at will from
period to period the required notice of termination must be given

3 See page 4 supra.







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


by one of them, or the other can insist that the tenancy continue
for another period. Of course, both can agree to termination
without notice (30).
Notice of termination is not likely to be as much of a prob-
lem in tenancies for a term and at sufferance. In fact, no notice
is required to terminate a tenancy for a term, since the tenancy
automatically terminates without notice at the expiration of the
time specified in the lease (31). On the other hand, a tenancy
at sufferance may be terminated by either party without notice
(32). Even in case of a tenancy for a term and at sufferance
as well as for a tenancy at will, however, notice of termination,
given in a manner to be described later, may be necessary or
desirable to assure the landlord that he can assert all of his
rights after termination.
All farm tenancies created by oral agreements are tenancies
at will (33). On the other hand, tenancies created by written
agreement are likely to be tenancies for a term. In order for a
written tenancy agreement to create a tenancy for a term, how-
ever, it must be signed by the lessor and must specify a limited
period of time during which the tenancy is to continue (34).
When a signed written lease provides for rent payable annually,
quarterly, monthly or weekly but does not specify how long the
tenancy is to continue, the tenancy becomes one at will from
period to period, the period in question being that at which the
rent is payable (35). Moreover, even though a tenancy agree-
ment is in writing and signed by the lessor, if it is for more
than one year and is not signed by the lessor in the presence of
two witnesses who also sign, it does not create a tenancy for the
term specified (36). Although the Supreme Court of Florida
has not ruled in this matter, it seems likely that a written agree-
ment of this kind creates a tenancy at will from period to period.
If, after the termination of the period specified in the lease agree-
ment of a tenancy for a term, the tenant continues to remain on
the land without renewing the lease but with the written con-
sent of the lessor, a tenancy at will from period to period is
created (37). On the other hand, if, after the termination of a
tenancy for a term, the tenant continues to remain on the land
without renewing the lease and with only the oral consent of
the lessor or without either the consent or objection of the lessor,
a tenancy at sufferance is created (38). Under a tenancy at
sufferance the tenant has few if any rights.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


nection, it is desirable to specify in the tenancy or sharecrop-
ping agreement that it is not intended to create a partnership.

KINDS OF FARM TENANCY
Three kinds of tenancy are recognized under the laws of
Florida:
1. Tenancy at Will (23) (known as Periodic Tenancy at
Common Law).
2. Tenancy for a Term (24).
3. Tenancy at Sufferance (25).
Of these, tenancy at will, which includes all tenancies created
by oral lease agreement, is the prevailing kind of farm tenancy
in Florida. Tenancy for a term, which is created by written
lease contract, is next in importance. And, there may possibly
be a few farm tenancies at sufferance in the State.
Both landlord and tenant should recognize the kind of ten-
ancy under which they are operating in order to know the kind
of notice required to terminate the tenancy, since it is upon ter-
mination that the landlord's right to enter and take possession
arises. Especially is this true for farmers whose tenancy is at
will (known as periodic tenancy at common law3), since in this
instance advance notice of termination of the tenancy must be
given by the landlord or tenant a specified time prior to the end
of the lease period (26). The length of the notice period required
depends upon whether the rent is payable annually, seasonally,
or at some other periodic interval. Many farm tenancies in
Florida are created by oral agreements with rent payable an-
nually. Such tenancies under the Laws of Florida are known as
tenancies at will from year to year (27). They require three
months notice of the termination before the end of the lease
year (28). Other tenancies at will in Florida are created by
oral agreements with rent payable at the end of the harvest
season for all crops or at more than one time during the year
as commodities produced on the farm are marketed. Reasonable
notice of termination would probably be required for tenancies
at will of this kind (29), but the Supreme Court of Florida has
not defined what that notice is under these circumstances. Land-
lords and tenants should realize that under a tenancy at will from
period to period the required notice of termination must be given

3 See page 4 supra.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


nection, it is desirable to specify in the tenancy or sharecrop-
ping agreement that it is not intended to create a partnership.

KINDS OF FARM TENANCY
Three kinds of tenancy are recognized under the laws of
Florida:
1. Tenancy at Will (23) (known as Periodic Tenancy at
Common Law).
2. Tenancy for a Term (24).
3. Tenancy at Sufferance (25).
Of these, tenancy at will, which includes all tenancies created
by oral lease agreement, is the prevailing kind of farm tenancy
in Florida. Tenancy for a term, which is created by written
lease contract, is next in importance. And, there may possibly
be a few farm tenancies at sufferance in the State.
Both landlord and tenant should recognize the kind of ten-
ancy under which they are operating in order to know the kind
of notice required to terminate the tenancy, since it is upon ter-
mination that the landlord's right to enter and take possession
arises. Especially is this true for farmers whose tenancy is at
will (known as periodic tenancy at common law3), since in this
instance advance notice of termination of the tenancy must be
given by the landlord or tenant a specified time prior to the end
of the lease period (26). The length of the notice period required
depends upon whether the rent is payable annually, seasonally,
or at some other periodic interval. Many farm tenancies in
Florida are created by oral agreements with rent payable an-
nually. Such tenancies under the Laws of Florida are known as
tenancies at will from year to year (27). They require three
months notice of the termination before the end of the lease
year (28). Other tenancies at will in Florida are created by
oral agreements with rent payable at the end of the harvest
season for all crops or at more than one time during the year
as commodities produced on the farm are marketed. Reasonable
notice of termination would probably be required for tenancies
at will of this kind (29), but the Supreme Court of Florida has
not defined what that notice is under these circumstances. Land-
lords and tenants should realize that under a tenancy at will from
period to period the required notice of termination must be given

3 See page 4 supra.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


nection, it is desirable to specify in the tenancy or sharecrop-
ping agreement that it is not intended to create a partnership.

KINDS OF FARM TENANCY
Three kinds of tenancy are recognized under the laws of
Florida:
1. Tenancy at Will (23) (known as Periodic Tenancy at
Common Law).
2. Tenancy for a Term (24).
3. Tenancy at Sufferance (25).
Of these, tenancy at will, which includes all tenancies created
by oral lease agreement, is the prevailing kind of farm tenancy
in Florida. Tenancy for a term, which is created by written
lease contract, is next in importance. And, there may possibly
be a few farm tenancies at sufferance in the State.
Both landlord and tenant should recognize the kind of ten-
ancy under which they are operating in order to know the kind
of notice required to terminate the tenancy, since it is upon ter-
mination that the landlord's right to enter and take possession
arises. Especially is this true for farmers whose tenancy is at
will (known as periodic tenancy at common law3), since in this
instance advance notice of termination of the tenancy must be
given by the landlord or tenant a specified time prior to the end
of the lease period (26). The length of the notice period required
depends upon whether the rent is payable annually, seasonally,
or at some other periodic interval. Many farm tenancies in
Florida are created by oral agreements with rent payable an-
nually. Such tenancies under the Laws of Florida are known as
tenancies at will from year to year (27). They require three
months notice of the termination before the end of the lease
year (28). Other tenancies at will in Florida are created by
oral agreements with rent payable at the end of the harvest
season for all crops or at more than one time during the year
as commodities produced on the farm are marketed. Reasonable
notice of termination would probably be required for tenancies
at will of this kind (29), but the Supreme Court of Florida has
not defined what that notice is under these circumstances. Land-
lords and tenants should realize that under a tenancy at will from
period to period the required notice of termination must be given

3 See page 4 supra.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


RIGHTS OF THE LANDLORD

Every farm landlord has certain rights and remedies under
the laws of Florida. These include among other things:
1. Rent (39).
2. Lien for rent (40).
3. Lien for advances made to the tenant for the sustenance
or well-being of his family or for production purposes (41).
4. Enforcement of liens for rent and advances (42).
5. Criminal action against the tenant who, without the land-
lord's consent, sells or disposes of property subject to the land-
lord's lien (43).
6. Possession upon termination of the lease (44).
7. Removal of tenant who remains on the land after termina-
tion of the lease (45).
8. Damages against the tenant for unlawfully remaining on
the land after termination of the tenancy (46).
9. Criminal action against the tenant for a term wio con-
tinues to hold possession after termination and ten days notice
to vacate (47).
10. Premises not materially changed by the use of the ten-
ant (48).
The landlord may exercise his rights or pursue his remedies
in ways that are provided by law. He may also waive or modify
them in the lease agreement or by other action. In exercising
his rights or pursuing his remedies, the landlord should be sure
that he is acting in a manner that will accomplish the result
he intends and that conforms with the law. Otherwise, he may
unintentionally waive a right or violate one or more of the ten.
ant's rights. For example, although the landlord has the right
to enter and take possession after default in rent or termination
of the lease, he should not use force in order to exercise his right.
If the tenant refuses to give up possession peaceably, the landlord
should seek to have him removed by the courts. If the landlord
does exercise his right of entry and possession by force, the ten-
ant can bring suit and recover damages against him for forcible
entry unless the amount of force used is found not to be material
(49).







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


Rent.-Rent is the landlord's consideration for granting the
tenant possession and use of his land (50). In fact, the landlord
may be entitled to rent even though the tenant's house or other
buildings on the farm are destroyed by fire, windstorm or other
causes beyond the landlord's control-unless otherwise provided
in the agreement (51). Should the tenant default in the pay-
ment of the rent, the landlord may seek to protect his interests
in one or more of the ways outlined in the following sections.
Where default in rent is accompanied by abandonment of the
premises before the end of the lease period the Supreme Court
of Florida has also suggested three alternatives that are avail-
able to the landlord (52):
1. He may resume exclusive possession of the premises and
treat the lease as terminated. If the tenant's abandonment was
not due to the fault of the landlord, the tenant may lose any
rights he had in the crops growing on the land at the time of
abandonment.
2. The landlord may retake possession in the name of the
tenant and bring a suit for damages against the tenant for the
difference between the tenant's rent and the amount the landlord
is able to realize by re-renting the premises or by continuing the
farming operations himself.
3. The landlord may stand by and do nothing and sue for
rent as it becomes due. In following this alternative, the land-
lord may use the distress proceedings for rent that are outlined
in the following sections.
Whatever approach the landlord uses in case of abandonment,
he should notify the tenant of his intentions.
One or both of two kinds of rent are provided for under most
Florida farm tenancy agreements:
1. Cash rent.
2. Share rent.
A definite amount of cash rent is usually specified at the
time of making a lease agreement that involves cash rent. On
the other hand, since a share rental agreement provides as rent
a share of the product or proceeds from the sale of the product,
the actual amount of rent due is indefinite until production is
complete or the product sold. This indefiniteness under a share
rental agreement creates special difficulties in determining the
actual amount of rent due the landlord where the tenant aban-
dons prior to the completion of production. The Supreme Court







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


of Florida has not interpreted the law in this situation. How-
ever, in cases of abandonment, the determination of the amount
of rent may be based on the amount of product that could have
been realized from the land if it had been farmed in a husband-
like manner and upon prices that prevailed for the product at
the time the rent was due (53).
Lien for Rent.-By exercising his lien for rent, in many in-
stances the landlord can be assured of collecting rent that is due
from a tenant. The landlord's lien is a charge upon the tenant's
property for rent that has become due, and it applies in the fol-
lowing manner:
1. Agricultural products raised on the rented land. The
landlord's lien has first priority over all other liens upon such
agricultural products. In other words, if other creditors of the
tenant also have liens against agricultural products produced on
rented land, the landlord by properly exercising his right can
collect from such products or the proceeds of their sale whatever
rent is due him, and then if anything is left it will go to satisfy
other creditors.
2. Property of the tenant usually kept on the rented prem-
ises. The landlord's lien upon this property is superior only to
liens acquired after bringing the tenant's property onto the
rented premises. It is not superior to liens acquired by creditors
prior to bringing the property onto the rented premises.
3. All other property of the tenant. The superiority of the
landlord's lien upon this property dates from the time the sheriff
or constable levies upon the property for the purpose of collecting
the amount of the lien (54).
The landlord may exercise his right to a lien by following a
summary distress proceeding, as described on pages 13 to 15.
However, certain exemptions from distress and sale for rent are
provided the tenant. The Florida Constitution gives a person
who is the head of a family residing in Florida an exemption of
one thousand dollars worth of personal property and his home-
stead (55). Also, the Florida statutes specifically exempt the
tenant's beds, bed clothes and wearing apparel (56). Although
the Supreme Court of Florida has not interpreted the law with
respect to this matter, it seems likely that the tenant's total per-
sonal property exemption would include his beds, bed clothes
and wearing apparel plus such additional exemption of personal
property as may be required to give a total value of $1,000. On







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


the other hand, it is possible that the total personal property ex-
emption will be interpreted to include the tenant's beds, bed
clothes and wearing apparel plus an additional exemption of
$1,000 worth of personal property. In either event, it should be
noted that the tenant's exemption does not apply to agricultural
products raised on the land (57). Moreover, it may not apply
to personal property of the tenant other than beds, bed clothes
and wearing apparel (58).
Lien for Advances.-Landlords frequently make advances to
their tenants or assume responsibility for advances made by
merchants and others for the sustenance and wellbeing of the
tenants' families or for production purposes. Such advances
are sometimes made in cash and sometimes in groceries, ferti-
lizer and other things of value. For such advances the landlord
has a lien upon the crops grown on the rented land and upon
the money or articles advanced or obtained with such ad-
vances. This lien has equal dignity with the landlord's lien for
rent upon crops grown upon the rented land, and along with
the lien for rent is superior to all other liens. Upon the money
or articles advanced or articles obtained with such advances, the
landlord's lien for advances is superior to all others (59).
Both the landlord's lien for rent and his lien for advances may
be enforced in the same distress proceeding (60). No exemption
is provided the tenant from distress and sale for advances with
respect to crops grown on the rented land (61). Moreover,
although the Supreme Court of Florida has not interpreted the
law in this connection, it seems doubtful that the tenant will
be permitted to include as exemptions money or articles ad-
vanced or articles obtained with such advances.
Enforcement of Liens for Rent and Advances.-The landlord
may enforce his liens for rent and advances by:
1. Bringing an ordinary suit at law against the tenant (62).
2. Bringing a distress proceeding against the tenant (63).
Of particular interest to landlords seeking to enforce their
liens for rent and advances is the distress proceeding that is
provided by the Florida statutes. This proceeding enables land-
lords to assert their liens through court procedures that are rela-
tively simple and fast. The steps involved in the proceeding are
as follows:
1. The landlord initiates the distress proceeding by filing an
affidavit in the appropriate court of the county where the rented
land lies. This affidavit must state the amount of rent due at







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


the other hand, it is possible that the total personal property ex-
emption will be interpreted to include the tenant's beds, bed
clothes and wearing apparel plus an additional exemption of
$1,000 worth of personal property. In either event, it should be
noted that the tenant's exemption does not apply to agricultural
products raised on the land (57). Moreover, it may not apply
to personal property of the tenant other than beds, bed clothes
and wearing apparel (58).
Lien for Advances.-Landlords frequently make advances to
their tenants or assume responsibility for advances made by
merchants and others for the sustenance and wellbeing of the
tenants' families or for production purposes. Such advances
are sometimes made in cash and sometimes in groceries, ferti-
lizer and other things of value. For such advances the landlord
has a lien upon the crops grown on the rented land and upon
the money or articles advanced or obtained with such ad-
vances. This lien has equal dignity with the landlord's lien for
rent upon crops grown upon the rented land, and along with
the lien for rent is superior to all other liens. Upon the money
or articles advanced or articles obtained with such advances, the
landlord's lien for advances is superior to all others (59).
Both the landlord's lien for rent and his lien for advances may
be enforced in the same distress proceeding (60). No exemption
is provided the tenant from distress and sale for advances with
respect to crops grown on the rented land (61). Moreover,
although the Supreme Court of Florida has not interpreted the
law in this connection, it seems doubtful that the tenant will
be permitted to include as exemptions money or articles ad-
vanced or articles obtained with such advances.
Enforcement of Liens for Rent and Advances.-The landlord
may enforce his liens for rent and advances by:
1. Bringing an ordinary suit at law against the tenant (62).
2. Bringing a distress proceeding against the tenant (63).
Of particular interest to landlords seeking to enforce their
liens for rent and advances is the distress proceeding that is
provided by the Florida statutes. This proceeding enables land-
lords to assert their liens through court procedures that are rela-
tively simple and fast. The steps involved in the proceeding are
as follows:
1. The landlord initiates the distress proceeding by filing an
affidavit in the appropriate court of the county where the rented
land lies. This affidavit must state the amount of rent due at







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


the time the affidavit is made, or the amount of the advances,
and whether the rent or advances are payable in money, cotton
or other agricultural product or thing (64). Even though the
relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased, the landlord may
initiate a distress proceeding to collect rent or advances incurred
under a tenancy (65).
2. Upon filing his affidavit the landlord must also file a bond
for at least twice the amount claimed in his affidavit. The bond
must be signed by two sureties who guarantee it. If the tenant
sustains costs and damages in consequence of the landlord's
improperly bringing a distress proceeding or if the proceeding
is dismissed or results in judgment for the tenant, then the ten-
ant may obtain a judgment against the landlord for his costs
and damages. Should the landlord not pay the amount of the
judgment, the two sureties will be held liable up to the amount
of the bond (66).
3. After the landlord has filed his affidavit and bond, the
clerk or judge of the court issues a distress warrant to the ex-
ecutive officer of the court who is usually the sheriff. The dis-
tress warrant commands the executive officer to:
a. Levy on (seize) the property of the tenant subject to
distress for such rent or advances.
b. Collect the amount claimed in the affidavit.
c. Summon the tenant to appear before the court at a date
fixed in the warrant not more than 10 days from the date the
distress warrant is issued (67).
4. The executive officer of the court proceeds to execute the
warrant by:
a Seizing and holding the tenant's property pending its dis-
position by the court.
b. Serving a summons on the tenant to appear before the
court. This summons must be served at least five days before
the appearance date. If the tenant cannot be found, however,
the seizure of his property will be sufficient service of the sum-
mons (68).
5. If the tenant desires to retain possession of property
levied on, he may do so by giving bond to the executive officer
of the court (69).
6. If the tenant appears before the court on the date set in
the distress warrant and files his affidavit that all or part of the
rent and advances claimed by the landlord are not due, then a
trial will be held immediately or at a later date fixed by the







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


court (70). As part of his defense, the tenant may also make
claims that he has against the landlord, such as claims for dam-
ages for breach of agreements included in the lease contract
(71). The tenant is entitled to a trial by jury unless he waives
his right to a jury trial (72).
7. If the verdict is for the landlord, a judgment is rendered
against the tenant for the amount of the rental or advances, in-
cluding interest and costs (73). Costs allowed include such
items as filing, witness' and sheriff's fees, but not the landlord's
attorney's fees (74). If the tenant was allowed to retain the
property levied on after giving bond, a judgment is also rendered
against the sureties on his bond. The sureties on the tenant's
bond may be held liable to the landlord up to the amount of the
bond unless the tenant pays the judgment or surrenders to the
court the property that he retained by giving bond. If the
verdict is for the tenant, the proceeding is dismissed and the
tenant is given a judgment against the landlord for his costs
(75), which include filing, witness' and sheriff's fees but not
his attorney's fees (76).
8. If the tenant does not appear before the court on the date
set in the distress warrant, the clerk or judge of the court ascer-
tains what rent or advances are due the landlord, and enters
judgment by default with costs against the tenant. A judgment
is also rendered against the sureties on the tenant's bond, if he
was allowed to retain the property levied on after giving bond
(77).
9. After a trial and judgment or a default judgment against
the tenant, the tenant's property retained by the court or re-
turned to the court by the tenant is sold and the proceeds are
applied in payment of the judgment to the landlord. However,
where the property involved is cotton or some other agricultural
product and the rent claimed by the landlord is payable in that
product, the court officer at the landlord's request may satisfy
the judgment with a quantity of the product to be adjudged by
the officer. Property that is sold must be advertised for 10
days, and it may be sold on the leased premises or at the court
house door (78).
Criminal Action Against Tenant.-The landlord may institute
a criminal action against the tenant if the tenant:
1. Without the written consent of the landlord, pledges,
mortgages, sells or otherwise disposes of any of his personal
property on which the landlord has a lien.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


2. Without the written consent of the landlord, removes or
causes the property to be removed from the county where the
lien was created. Temporary removal from the county in con-
nection with the reasonable use of the property would not be
a crime; but the court would need to decide whether the removal
was temporary and in connection with a reasonable use. For
example, it seems likely that the use will be reasonable and tem-
porary if, during the period of his tenancy, the tenant uses his
tractor and equipment to farm other lands in an adjacent county
(79).
3. With the intent to defeat, hinder or delay the enforcement
of the landlord's lien, hides, conceals or transfers the property.
It should be noted that proof of the tenant's intent is required in
this instance.
If the tenant is convicted of the crime, he will be punished
by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment
not exceeding one year (80).
Possession Upon Termination.-Right of possession of leased
premises passes from the tenant to the landlord upon the termi-
nation of a tenancy (81). An exception to this general rule
occurs when the tenant purchases the land from the landlord,
thereby terminating the tenancy and vesting the right of posses-
sion in himself (82). Moreover, should a landlord sell his interest
in land to another, then the right of possession upon termination
would go to the buyer (83).
Terminations associated with the different kinds of tenancy
have been discussed above. These include automatic termination
of a tenancy for a term at the expiration of the lease, termina-
tion of a tenancy at will following the giving of timely notice and
termination of a tenancy at sufferance at the discretion of either
party.
There are, of course, ways of terminating a tenancy other
than those associated with a particular kind of tenancy. The
landlord and tenant may mutually agree to terminate at a par-
ticular time, or upon the happening of a certain event (84).
The tenant may forfeit his lease by failing to pay the rent upon
formal demand by the landlord (85). The tenant may also for-
feit his lease by committing some act that the lease contract
provides will result in forfeiture (86). The tenant may sur-
render his lease and it will be terminated if the landlord ac-
cepts (87).







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


In each instance where termination is a matter of contro-
versy, the courts carefully scrutinize the facts to determine
the intention of the parties and to see whether their acts justify
termination. In this connection, appropriate notice is of vital
importance, not only to assure termination but also to assure
the parties that they can pursue their legal remedies after ter-
mination. For example, if a party desires to bring about the
termination of a tenancy at will, his notice to the other party
must not be a demand for immediate possession (to which he is
not entitled) but it must be clear that his demand for possession
or notice to quit relates to some future time when he would be
entitled to possession (88). Moreover, when the tenant fails to
pay rent that is due, the landlord in order to get the right of
possession must make a formal demand for such rent (89).
And, if the landlord desires to avail himself of removal proceed-
ings in case the tenant not only fails to pay rent due but also
retains possession, his demand must be in writing and must
require the payment of the rent or possession of the premises
(90).
Removal of the Tenant.-A summary removal proceeding is
available to give the landlord speedy relief in cases where the
tenant continues to retain possession after termination. The
law specifically provides that the tenant may be removed where
he holds over and continues in the possession of the premises,
or any part thereof, without permission of the landlord:
1. After the expiration of his time,
Or
2. After (a) any default in the payment of rent pursuant
to the lease agreement and (b) three days' notice in writing,
requiring payment of the rent or possession of the premises,
shall have been served by the landlord upon the tenant (91).
It must be clear that the tenant retains possession without
permission of the landlord. In any instance where this question
might arise, even after the automatic termination of a tenancy
for a term, the landlord should be sure to serve the tenant with
a written notice to quit.
In counties that do not have a County Court, a removal pro-
ceeding may be brought in a County Judge's Court; but in coun-
ties that do have a County Court, a removal proceeding must
be brought in such court (92). All counties of Florida have a
County Judge's Court, and a few also have a County Court. The
proceedings are similar but not identical for each kind of court;







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


and they must be followed strictly as set forth in the law (93).
The major steps included in the removal proceeding in a County
Judge's Court are as follows:
1. The landlord initiates the removal proceeding by filing
a petition, under oath, with the County Judge of the county
where the rented land lies. This petition must state the facts
which authorize removal of the tenant, and it must describe the
premises (94).
2. The County Judge then issues a summons that is served
upon the tenant by the sheriff. This summons describes the
premises demanded, and requires the tenant to remove from the
premises or show cause why he should not do so within a speci-
fied time of not less than three and not more than five days (95).
3. If, by the time specified in the summons, the tenant files
an affidavit with the County Judge denying any of the facts upon
which the summons was issued, a trial will be held. The trial
will be held before a jury if either the landlord or tenant so de-
mands; otherwise it will be held without a jury (96).
4. If the verdict is for the landlord, a judgment is rendered
that entitles the landlord to recover possession of the property
and his costs from the tenant. On the third day after the verdict,
the judge issues a warrant commanding the sheriff to put the
landlord in possession of the premises and to collect the landlord's
costs from the tenant. If the verdict is for the tenant, the pro-
ceeding is dismissed and the tenant is given a judgment for his
costs against the landlord (97).
5. If the tenant fails to file an affidavit of denial by the time
specified in the summons, then the judge without a trial enters
a judgment that entitles the landlord to recover possession and
costs from the tenant (98).
Damages Against the Tenant.-Instead of using the removal
proceeding described, the landlord may bring suit for what is
called unlawful detainer and recover not only possession and
costs, but also damages (99). Damages of twice the rental value
of the property for the time of the unlawful or wrongful holding
are allowed if the detention is willful and knowingly wrongful
(100). On the other hand, if the detention is not willful and
knowingly wrongful, then damages equal to the rental value are
allowed (101). Thus, the landlord who desires to take advantage
of the larger damages should give such notice to the tenant as
will make it clearly apparent that the tenant's retention is willful
and knowingly wrongful. Probably a written notice to quit as







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


previously described is sufficient for this purpose; hut for added
insurance, the landlord might well cite in such notice the statutes
under which he demands possession.
It may be that the landlord will desire not removal, but only
damages from a tenant who refuses to give up possession at the
end of his lease. In this connection the law provides that the
landlord "may demand of such tenant double the monthly rent,
and may recover the same at the expiration of every month, or
in the same proportion for a longer or shorter time by distress"
proceeding (102). Thus, if the landlord does not want to bring
a removal proceeding or to sue for unlawful detainer, he may
simply demand double the rental value of the premises at what-
ever intervals he desires and then collect by a distress proceeding.
Most farm tenancies are for a year or a season, and not for
a quarter or month or shorter period. What part of the total
annual or seasonal rent is due for a period shorter than a year
or season, where the tenant holds over, has not been decided by
the Florida court in the case of a farm tenancy. Nor has there
been an interpretation of the law as to the total amount of the
annual or seasonal rent, where a share-tenant remains over for
a part of the year or season, but not long enough to make a crop.
In each instance the court would probably strive to arrive at
some reasonable basis.
In seeking to arrive at a reasonable basis for deciding what
part of the total annual or seasonal rent is due when the tenant
remains over for a part of a year or season, perhaps the court
will decide that the rent should be based upon the fractional
part of the year or season that the tenant retains possession of
the premises. Thus, if the tenant remains over for three months,
and rent is payable on an annual basis, the court might compute
the rent due by taking three-twelfths of the total annual rent.
On the other hand, by remaining over for a part of the year the
tenant may prevent the landlord from realizing any income from
the farm for the entire year. In this situation the court may
decide that rent for the entire year is due the landlord. Since
rent is a part of the produce under a share-tenant agreement,
there would be no exact basis for determining an equitable rent
under this arrangement if the tenant did not remain over long
enough to make a crop. In this case the total annual or seasonal
rent might be considered as the landlord's share of the crop for
the previous year adjusted, perhaps, for changes in prices and
growing conditions. For example, if the value of the landlord's






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


share the previous year had been $2,000, and prices had increased
10 percent, the court might adopt $2,200 as a reasonable rent for
the year in which the tenant remained over. Assuming, then,
that the tenant had remained over for three months of a year,
and that the court considers three-twelfths of the annual rent a
reasonable proportion, then the rental value for the three months
would be three-twelfths of $2,200 or $550.
Criminal Action Against Tenant for a Term Who Retains
Possession After Termination and Notice.-The landlord may
institute a criminal action against a tenant for a term who holds
over after the expiration of his lease. It is unlawful for a tenant
under a tenancy for a term to hold possession:
1. After his lease has expired.
2. Where no new lease has been executed or agreed upon.
3. After 10 days' written notice to vacate.
If the tenant is convicted, he will be deemed guilty of a mis-
demeanor and will be punished by a fine of not more than one
hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months
(103). It should be noted that this criminal action applies in
case of a tenancy for a term; and that it does not apply in con-
nection with a tenancy created by verbal agreement (104).
Premises Not Materially Changed by the Use of the Tenant.-
In general, the tenant must so use leased premises that they will
not be materially changed at the termination of the tenancy.
A tenant is liable, in the absence of an express agreement to
the contrary, for causing a permanent injury to the leased prem-
ises over and above the ordinary wear and tear, when such in-
jury is caused by his wrongful act or negligence (105). The
tenant may not without agreement with the landlord materially
change the nature and character of the property, even though
such changes are of benefit to the property (106).
The law of waste, which is the legal name for acts of the
tenant that materially change or damage rented property, has
not been interpreted in detail by the Supreme Court of Florida.
In other states, however, the courts have said that waste in-
cludes: overtillage, improper farming practices that damage the
land, the removal or destruction of a fence, the flooding of lands,
the diversion or obstruction of a natural watercourse, the cut-
ting of timber, the burning of standing timber, the partial de-
struction of a house, the maintenance of a nuisance, and the
removal of stone or gravel (107). It seems likely that the
Florida court will also consider some, if not all, of such acts as






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


share the previous year had been $2,000, and prices had increased
10 percent, the court might adopt $2,200 as a reasonable rent for
the year in which the tenant remained over. Assuming, then,
that the tenant had remained over for three months of a year,
and that the court considers three-twelfths of the annual rent a
reasonable proportion, then the rental value for the three months
would be three-twelfths of $2,200 or $550.
Criminal Action Against Tenant for a Term Who Retains
Possession After Termination and Notice.-The landlord may
institute a criminal action against a tenant for a term who holds
over after the expiration of his lease. It is unlawful for a tenant
under a tenancy for a term to hold possession:
1. After his lease has expired.
2. Where no new lease has been executed or agreed upon.
3. After 10 days' written notice to vacate.
If the tenant is convicted, he will be deemed guilty of a mis-
demeanor and will be punished by a fine of not more than one
hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months
(103). It should be noted that this criminal action applies in
case of a tenancy for a term; and that it does not apply in con-
nection with a tenancy created by verbal agreement (104).
Premises Not Materially Changed by the Use of the Tenant.-
In general, the tenant must so use leased premises that they will
not be materially changed at the termination of the tenancy.
A tenant is liable, in the absence of an express agreement to
the contrary, for causing a permanent injury to the leased prem-
ises over and above the ordinary wear and tear, when such in-
jury is caused by his wrongful act or negligence (105). The
tenant may not without agreement with the landlord materially
change the nature and character of the property, even though
such changes are of benefit to the property (106).
The law of waste, which is the legal name for acts of the
tenant that materially change or damage rented property, has
not been interpreted in detail by the Supreme Court of Florida.
In other states, however, the courts have said that waste in-
cludes: overtillage, improper farming practices that damage the
land, the removal or destruction of a fence, the flooding of lands,
the diversion or obstruction of a natural watercourse, the cut-
ting of timber, the burning of standing timber, the partial de-
struction of a house, the maintenance of a nuisance, and the
removal of stone or gravel (107). It seems likely that the
Florida court will also consider some, if not all, of such acts as






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


waste when it is called upon to do so. In one decision, the
Supreme Court of Florida did designate as waste the acts of a
tenant in changing the plan and style of a building, and it said
that such acts would be waste even though they benefited the
building (108).
When the tenant commits waste, the landlord may apply to
the courts for an injunction commanding the tenant to discon-
tinue such acts (109). In some instances, the courts of other
states have gone so far as to issue a mandatory injunction di-
recting the tenant to restore the premises to their original con-
dition (110). The landlord may also sue the tenant for damages
resulting from waste (111). If the Florida courts interpret
the law in this respect as it has been interpreted in other states,
the amount of damages allowed may be the depreciation in the
market value of the property or the cost of restoration to its
former condition (112).

RIGHTS OF A TENANT
A tenant during the life of his lease holds an estate in the
land that is equivalent to absolute ownership, according to state-
ments made in at least three decisions of the Supreme Court
of Florida (113). While this may be somewhat of an overstate-
ment, it is certainly true that the most vital rights of a tenant
are the same as those that belonged to the landlord before he
rented the land. In effect, these rights pass from the landlord
to the tenant at the time the tenancy begins.
Our Supreme Court has not been called upon to interpret the
law with respect to most of the rights of a tenant-particularly
a farm tenant. When called upon to do so, our court in most
instances probably will follow the interpretations generally given
by the courts of other states. As a guide, therefore, a brief
statement is given below of the law concerning the most vital
rights of a tenant, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Flor-
ida, or as generally interpreted by the Supreme Courts of other
states.
These rights and the kinds of farm tenants that may be per-
mitted by the Supreme Court of Florida to assert each of them
are as follows:
1. Possession of the Land (114). Tenants for a term and
probably tenants at will from period to period can assert this
right against the landlord and also against other persons who do
not have superior rights of possession. On the other hand, per-






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


haps a tenant at sufferance can assert this right only against
persons other than the landlord who do not have superior rights
(115).
2. Ownership and Possession of Produce Raised by the Ten-
ant. All three kinds of Florida farm tenants probably can assert
this right (116).
3. Ownership of Crops Growing on the Land at the Termina-
tion of the Lease. This right probably can be asserted by ten-
ants at will from period to period but not ordinarily by tenants
for a term or at sufferance (117).
4. Timber for Agricultural Needs on Rented Land. Tenants
for a term and at will from period to period probably can assert
this right, but not tenants at sufferance (118).
5. Assignment or Sublease of Tenancy. This right can be
asserted by a tenant for a term, and perhaps by a tenant at will
from period to period in Florida. It probably cannot be asserted
by a tenant at sufferance, unless, of course, the landlord consents
to an assignment or sublease (119).
Possession of the Land.-Possession and control of the land
is one of the tenancy's fundamental rights (120). This right,
unless the lease contract expressly provides otherwise, entitles
the tenant to:
1. Enter and take possession of the premises at the beginning
of the lease period (121).
2. Quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the leased premises after
he has taken possession (122).
Should the landlord, after making a rental contract, refuse
to give the tenant possession at the beginning of the lease period
provided in the lease contract, the tenant may maintain a suit for
damages (123). The tenant should not, however, assert his right
to possession by forcibly taking over premises that the landlord
refuses to give up. In so doing, he becomes liable for damages
to the landlord in a suit for forcible entry (124).
In general, after the tenant has taken possession, the land-
lord has no right to enter the leased premises. Of course, the
landlord's entry will not be wrongful if the tenant consents or
if the lease contract reserves the right of entry to the landlord.
Moreover, the courts of some other states have said that the
landlord may enter rented premises to demand payment of the
rent when due, to prevent waste, and to perform acts to save him-






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


self from liability for negligence in connection with the premises
(125). If the landlord's invasion of the tenant's right of pos-
session is wrongful, it will constitute a trespass for which the
landlord is liable (126). Should the landlord wrongfully invade
the tenant's right of possession, the tenant may, depending upon
the circumstances, maintain a suit to recover damages, to enjoin
wrongful interference with his possession, or to recover posses-
sion (127). Moreover, if the trespass is committed by a person
acting under authority of the landlord, the tenant may hold the
landlord liable and bring suit against him (128).
Sometimes persons other than the landlord have a right of
possession superior to that of the tenant. Their right of posses-
sion may have come from a lease or deed previously given by the
landlord or from a deed to the property from someone who had
a title superior to that of the landlord. Should such a person
assert his superior right of possession and evict the tenant, there-
by disturbing his quiet possession, then the tenant may maintain
a suit for damages against his landlord (129).
The right of possession and control of rented land belong to
and can be asserted by a tenant for a term and probably by a
tenant at will from period to period in all of the situations de-
scribed above. However, a tenant at sufferance can assert the
right of possession only against a person other than the landlord
who does not have a right of possession superior to that of the
tenant (130).
Ownership and Possession of Produce Raised by the Tenant.-
The tenant has the right of ownership and possession of crops
and livestock that he raises on rented land (131). This is gen-
erally the law for all kinds of tenants, even for tenants at suffer-
ance (132). Moreover, in the case of a share tenancy where the
landlord is entitled to a part of the produce as rent, the right of
possession and ownership of the whole produce belongs to the
tenant until he divides off the landlord's share (133).
It is true that landlords with liens for rent and advances (134)
and others with liens against the tenant's produce may, through
appropriate legal action, gain the right to ownership and posses-
sion of the tenant's produce. But, if a landlord or other person
should deprive a tenant of his ownership or possession without
the legal right to do so or without appropriate legal action, the
tenant may, depending on the circumstances, maintain a suit
for damages or for return of the produce, or he may bring a
criminal suit against such persons (135).






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


The tenant's right of possession or ownership may be modi-
fied by provisions in the lease agreement. For example, the
lease agreement may provide that the landlord can retain pos-
session of the crop until the tenant pays the rent or performs
some other act stipulated in the contract. Or, the lease agree-
ment may actually give the landlord ownership and possession
of crops produced on the rented land by the tenant. However,
in allowing these modifications of the tenant's right of possession
and ownership, the courts have required that they be clearly
expressed in the rental contract (136).
Ownership of Crops Growing on the Land at Termination of
Lease.-The tenant is generally entitled to the ownership of
crops growing on rented land at the termination of a lease where:
1. The time of termination of the lease was uncertain, as in
the case of a tenancy at will from period to period.
2. Termination was not due to some act or fault of the ten-
ant, as, for example, when the tenant forfeits his lease by de-
faulting in the payment of rent.
3. The tenant planted the crop without knowledge or notice
of termination.
In exercising his right of ownership over growing crops after
termination of his tenancy, the tenant may enter upon the land
to cultivate his immature crops and to harvest them when they
become mature. This is known in the law as the "doctrine of
emblements." The basis of this doctrine is the justice of assur-
ing the tenant compensation for his labor, and the desirability
of encouraging husbandry as a matter of public policy.
The tenant's rights to growing crops under the "doctrine of
emblements" may be modified by provisions in the lease contract.
For example, a lease contract may provide that all crops remain-
ing on the land at the termination of the lease belong to the
landlord, or that the tenant shall be compensated a stipulated
amount for crops growing on the land at termination. More-
over, it should be noted that the doctrine does not apply if the
tenant plants the crop with the knowledge that his tenancy must
inevitably expire before harvesting his crops (137).
Because of indefiniteness as to time of termination, it seems
likely that the Florida courts might apply the "doctrine of emble-
ments" in connection with a tenancy at will from period to period
when the crop is planted before notice of termination. This is
not likely to be the case for a tenancy at sufferance, however,
although the time of termination of such a tenancy is also indefi-






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


nite (138). In all probability, the tenant at sufferance would
lose any claim he had to crops growing on rented land at the
termination of his tenancy. As a general rule, the tenant for a
term would also lose any claim he had to growing crops-in this
instance, because of the definiteness of the termination of his
tenancy.
Timber for Agricultural Needs of Rented Lands.-A tenant
has the right to take from rented premises timber necessary for
fuel, the repair of buildings, the repair of farm implements, the
repair of fences, and for other agricultural needs. This is known
in the law as the "right to estovers." It seems likely that the
Florida courts may allow the right to estovers for a tenant for
a term and possibly for a tenant at will from period to period,
but not for a tenant at sufferance.
The tenant's exercise of his right to estovers must be reason-
able in the light of circumstances. For example, if there is an
abundance of timber, more latitude will be given the tenant than
if timber is scarce. A tenant is not likely to have the right to
cut down valuable trees for firewood; nor is he likely to have a
right to cut trees planted for ornamentation. The tenant will
have the right to cut trees for agricultural uses only on the rented
premises-not for use elsewhere (139). If the tenant were to cut
more trees than is permissible under his right to estovers, he
might be subject to a criminal action (140). Moreover, the ten-
ant's rights to estovers can be modified or eliminated by provi-
sions in the lease contract.
Assignment or Sublease of Tenancy.-A tenancy in some in-
stances may be assigned, or subleased, by the tenant without
the consent of the landlord. That is to say, the tenant may assign
all or sublease part of his leasehold estate in rented land to an-
other person. It appears that a Florida farm tenant may assign
or sublease without the landlord's consent where:
1. There is a tenancy for a term, or perhaps where there is
a tenancy at will from period to period (141). A tenancy at
sufferance probably cannot be assigned or subleased without con-
sent of the landlord (142).
2. Rent is payable in cash not in a share of the crop.
Courts of other states have said that a lease of land on shares
is regarded as a personal contract and is not assignable or sub-
leasable without the consent of the landlord, for the reason that
the amount to be received by the landlord and the care of the
property depend on the character, industry and skill of the ten-
ant (143).






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


nite (138). In all probability, the tenant at sufferance would
lose any claim he had to crops growing on rented land at the
termination of his tenancy. As a general rule, the tenant for a
term would also lose any claim he had to growing crops-in this
instance, because of the definiteness of the termination of his
tenancy.
Timber for Agricultural Needs of Rented Lands.-A tenant
has the right to take from rented premises timber necessary for
fuel, the repair of buildings, the repair of farm implements, the
repair of fences, and for other agricultural needs. This is known
in the law as the "right to estovers." It seems likely that the
Florida courts may allow the right to estovers for a tenant for
a term and possibly for a tenant at will from period to period,
but not for a tenant at sufferance.
The tenant's exercise of his right to estovers must be reason-
able in the light of circumstances. For example, if there is an
abundance of timber, more latitude will be given the tenant than
if timber is scarce. A tenant is not likely to have the right to
cut down valuable trees for firewood; nor is he likely to have a
right to cut trees planted for ornamentation. The tenant will
have the right to cut trees for agricultural uses only on the rented
premises-not for use elsewhere (139). If the tenant were to cut
more trees than is permissible under his right to estovers, he
might be subject to a criminal action (140). Moreover, the ten-
ant's rights to estovers can be modified or eliminated by provi-
sions in the lease contract.
Assignment or Sublease of Tenancy.-A tenancy in some in-
stances may be assigned, or subleased, by the tenant without
the consent of the landlord. That is to say, the tenant may assign
all or sublease part of his leasehold estate in rented land to an-
other person. It appears that a Florida farm tenant may assign
or sublease without the landlord's consent where:
1. There is a tenancy for a term, or perhaps where there is
a tenancy at will from period to period (141). A tenancy at
sufferance probably cannot be assigned or subleased without con-
sent of the landlord (142).
2. Rent is payable in cash not in a share of the crop.
Courts of other states have said that a lease of land on shares
is regarded as a personal contract and is not assignable or sub-
leasable without the consent of the landlord, for the reason that
the amount to be received by the landlord and the care of the
property depend on the character, industry and skill of the ten-
ant (143).






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


3. The lease contract does not expressly prohibit assignment
or subletting (144).
Landlords who want to be sure that their lands are cultivated
by persons who meet with their approval should expressly stipu-
late in their leases that the land may not be assigned or sub-
leased without their consent. Then, if the tenant desires to
assign or sublease, he may do so only with the landlord's consent
(145). On the other hand, the tenant who assigns or subleases
rented land should realize that he will continue to be liable to
the landlord on all or part of the express and implied agreements
included in the lease contract-unless the landlord releases him
from such responsibility. For example, if the lease expressly
provides for the payment of rent, the tenant will be liable to
the landlord for such rent even though he has assigned his entire
leasehold estate to another. Of course, if the person to whom
the tenant assigned his lease pays the rent, the tenant will be
relieved of his responsibility for that part of the rent (146).

RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYER UNDER A SHARECROPPING
AGREEMENT
The parties to a sharecropping agreement are the sharecrop-
per and his employer. Usually, the employer is a landowner or
a renter who has entered into a sharecropping agreement with a
sharecropper. Frequently, the employer is referred to as a
landlord; but in effect his rights and obligations under the law
are not like those of a landlord in a landlord-tenant agreement.
They are instead more like those of an employer in an employer-
employee agreement. On the other hand, the sharecropper is
sometimes referred to as a tenant, but his legal rights and obli-
gations are those of an employee in an employer-employee ar-
rangement.
Some of the more important rights usually held by the em-
ployer in a sharecropping arrangement are as follows:
1. Direction of sharecropper's activities.
2. Discharge of the sharecropper before end of contract
period.
3. Possession of the land.
4. Ownership and control of the produce.
5. Division of the produce.
6. Recovery of the produce or the value of the produce if
the sharecropper withholds or sells it.
7. Criminal actions against the sharecropper.






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


The general nature of each of these rights is outlined below.
It should be recognized, however, that in many cases an em-
ployer's right as described can be altered by express agreement
between the employer and sharecropper.
Direction of Sharecropper's Activities.-An outstanding and
usual characteristic of the employer-sharecropper relationship
is the right of the employer to supervise the work of the share-
cropper (147). This includes the designation of the kinds and
amounts of crops and livestock to be raised by the sharecropper.
It also includes the guidance and direction of the day to day work
of the sharecropper. As in the case of an employee hired for
cash, however, it seems that considerable latitude may be al-
lowed the sharecropper in the performance of his work. The
employer's right to supervise the sharecropper's work may be
general in nature rather than specific and detailed. For example,
the agreement may provide that the sharecropper is to use his
own judgment as to how the crops are to be planted and as to
the method of cultivation to be used, or as to how the livestock
are to be raised (148).
Discharge of the Sharecropper Before End of Contract Period.
-The employer generally may discharge the sharecropper at
any time. In this respect the sharecropper, whose wages are
paid with a portion of what he produces, is no different from a
hired laborer whose wages are paid in cash. And, as with a cash
laborer who is discharged before the end of the period for which
he was employed, the sharecropper who is discharged before the
end of the period provided in the sharecropping contract may
bring suit for damages for breach of the sharecropping contract
(149). However, it may be that if the sharecropper has com-
mitted unlawful or wrongful acts or has agreed to his discharge,
the courts may hold that the employer was justified in breaching
the contract and that the sharecropper may not collect damages
for such breach.
Possession of the Land.-In general, the right of possession
of the land belongs to the employer under a sharecropping ar-
rangement (150). Usually, the sharecropper has actual physical
possession in that he lives on and cultivates the land. Such physi-
cal possession, however, is merely that of a hired laborer, and
in holding such physical possession the sharecropper is acting
as a servant of his employer (151). The employer can assert
his right of possession at any time by requiring that the share-
cropper give up physical possession. Thus, when the employer






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


The general nature of each of these rights is outlined below.
It should be recognized, however, that in many cases an em-
ployer's right as described can be altered by express agreement
between the employer and sharecropper.
Direction of Sharecropper's Activities.-An outstanding and
usual characteristic of the employer-sharecropper relationship
is the right of the employer to supervise the work of the share-
cropper (147). This includes the designation of the kinds and
amounts of crops and livestock to be raised by the sharecropper.
It also includes the guidance and direction of the day to day work
of the sharecropper. As in the case of an employee hired for
cash, however, it seems that considerable latitude may be al-
lowed the sharecropper in the performance of his work. The
employer's right to supervise the sharecropper's work may be
general in nature rather than specific and detailed. For example,
the agreement may provide that the sharecropper is to use his
own judgment as to how the crops are to be planted and as to
the method of cultivation to be used, or as to how the livestock
are to be raised (148).
Discharge of the Sharecropper Before End of Contract Period.
-The employer generally may discharge the sharecropper at
any time. In this respect the sharecropper, whose wages are
paid with a portion of what he produces, is no different from a
hired laborer whose wages are paid in cash. And, as with a cash
laborer who is discharged before the end of the period for which
he was employed, the sharecropper who is discharged before the
end of the period provided in the sharecropping contract may
bring suit for damages for breach of the sharecropping contract
(149). However, it may be that if the sharecropper has com-
mitted unlawful or wrongful acts or has agreed to his discharge,
the courts may hold that the employer was justified in breaching
the contract and that the sharecropper may not collect damages
for such breach.
Possession of the Land.-In general, the right of possession
of the land belongs to the employer under a sharecropping ar-
rangement (150). Usually, the sharecropper has actual physical
possession in that he lives on and cultivates the land. Such physi-
cal possession, however, is merely that of a hired laborer, and
in holding such physical possession the sharecropper is acting
as a servant of his employer (151). The employer can assert
his right of possession at any time by requiring that the share-
cropper give up physical possession. Thus, when the employer






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


The general nature of each of these rights is outlined below.
It should be recognized, however, that in many cases an em-
ployer's right as described can be altered by express agreement
between the employer and sharecropper.
Direction of Sharecropper's Activities.-An outstanding and
usual characteristic of the employer-sharecropper relationship
is the right of the employer to supervise the work of the share-
cropper (147). This includes the designation of the kinds and
amounts of crops and livestock to be raised by the sharecropper.
It also includes the guidance and direction of the day to day work
of the sharecropper. As in the case of an employee hired for
cash, however, it seems that considerable latitude may be al-
lowed the sharecropper in the performance of his work. The
employer's right to supervise the sharecropper's work may be
general in nature rather than specific and detailed. For example,
the agreement may provide that the sharecropper is to use his
own judgment as to how the crops are to be planted and as to
the method of cultivation to be used, or as to how the livestock
are to be raised (148).
Discharge of the Sharecropper Before End of Contract Period.
-The employer generally may discharge the sharecropper at
any time. In this respect the sharecropper, whose wages are
paid with a portion of what he produces, is no different from a
hired laborer whose wages are paid in cash. And, as with a cash
laborer who is discharged before the end of the period for which
he was employed, the sharecropper who is discharged before the
end of the period provided in the sharecropping contract may
bring suit for damages for breach of the sharecropping contract
(149). However, it may be that if the sharecropper has com-
mitted unlawful or wrongful acts or has agreed to his discharge,
the courts may hold that the employer was justified in breaching
the contract and that the sharecropper may not collect damages
for such breach.
Possession of the Land.-In general, the right of possession
of the land belongs to the employer under a sharecropping ar-
rangement (150). Usually, the sharecropper has actual physical
possession in that he lives on and cultivates the land. Such physi-
cal possession, however, is merely that of a hired laborer, and
in holding such physical possession the sharecropper is acting
as a servant of his employer (151). The employer can assert
his right of possession at any time by requiring that the share-
cropper give up physical possession. Thus, when the employer






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


discharges the sharecropper during the crop year, or when the
sharecropping contract is terminted at the end of the crop year,
the sharecropper can be required to give up physical possession
in favor of the employer's higher right of possession (152).
In Florida, this general rule that the employer has the right
of possession of the land may possibly be qualified by certain
statutes that have not been interpreted in this connection by the
Supreme Court of Florida. One of these statutes gives the share-
cropper a lien against the land for labor performed thereon (153).
Another provides that one with such a lien can retain possession
for three months of the property upon which he has a lien if he
were in possession at the time the lien attached (154). It may
be that our Supreme Court will consider the sharecropper's
physical possession as an employee enough for the purpose of the
statute to enable him to retain physical possession for three
months. If this is true, it seems likely that a sharecropper can
retain possession of his employer's land when:
1. He already has physical possession of the land.
2. He has not been given his part of the produce after de-
ducting the employer's advances. If the sharecropper's part of
the produce is less than the employer's advances, then, of course,
the sharecropper will not be entitled to anything and cannot
legally retain possession of the employer's land.
3. He has fulfilled his part of the sharecropping agreement,
which usually includes producing and harvesting crops and rais-
ing livestock. Even though the sharecropper has not fulfilled
his part of the sharecropping agreement, if his failure to do so
was because of his wrongful discharge by the employer, he may
still have the right to retain possession for three months.
4. The employer has had an opportunity and reasonable time
in which to settle with the sharecropper.
During this period of three months, the employer cannot suc-
cessfully require the sharecropper to give up physical possession
of the land-unless the employer takes certain measures. For
example, the employer can offer to pay the sharecropper his share
of the produce and, if the sharecropper accepts, the employer
probably will have the right to require the sharecropper to give
up possession. If the sharecropper refuses to accept the em-
ployer's offer, the employer can appeal to the court for relief.
Or, if the employer discharges the sharecropper because of
wrongful or illegal acts and the sharecropper refuses to give






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


up possession, the employer can probably get relief by appealing
to the court.
If the sharecropper refuses to give up possession of the land,
when he does not have the right to retain possession pursuant
to the three months provision mentioned above, the sharecropper
may be considered a trespasser on the land (155). His re-
moval can be obtained by the employer through appropriate
court action. In any action that he takes to assert his right of
possession, however, the employer should be sure that he is act-
ing in a manner that conforms with the law. Otherwise, he may
commit an act that will make him subject to a criminal action
or a suit for damages. For example, if the employer should exer-
cise his right of possession by acts of force and violence against
the person of the sharecropper, he may be liable in both a crim-
inal and a civil suit for assault and battery (156).
Ownership and Control of the Produce.-The employer has
the right of ownership and control of crops and livestock raised
under a sharecropping agreement (157). In the course of raising
crops and livestock on the land, however, the sharecropper fre-
quently has actual physical possession of the produce. As in
the case of land in the physical possession of the sharecropper,
the sharecropper's physical possession of the produce is subject
to the employer's higher right of ownership and control (158).
In general, the employer can require at any time that the share-
cropper give up possession of the produce; and the sharecropper
cannot, without the employer's consent, sell or otherwise dispose
of any of the produce.
This general rule may also be qualified by Florida statutes in
a manner similar to that described in connection with the em-
ployer's right to possession of the land. It is possible that under
the Florida statutes a sharecropper who has fulfilled his part
of the sharecropping agreement and has not been paid that part
of the produce to which he is entitled can retain possession of
the produce raised under a sharecropping agreement for three
months (159).
Division of the Produce.-One phase of the employer's right
of ownership and control of the produce raised under a share-
cropping agreement is his right to divide the produce and give
the sharecropper his share (160). It should be noted that the
sharecropper does not have the right to divide the produce and
give the employer his share, unless, of course, the employer con-
sents to such a division by the sharecropper.






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


up possession, the employer can probably get relief by appealing
to the court.
If the sharecropper refuses to give up possession of the land,
when he does not have the right to retain possession pursuant
to the three months provision mentioned above, the sharecropper
may be considered a trespasser on the land (155). His re-
moval can be obtained by the employer through appropriate
court action. In any action that he takes to assert his right of
possession, however, the employer should be sure that he is act-
ing in a manner that conforms with the law. Otherwise, he may
commit an act that will make him subject to a criminal action
or a suit for damages. For example, if the employer should exer-
cise his right of possession by acts of force and violence against
the person of the sharecropper, he may be liable in both a crim-
inal and a civil suit for assault and battery (156).
Ownership and Control of the Produce.-The employer has
the right of ownership and control of crops and livestock raised
under a sharecropping agreement (157). In the course of raising
crops and livestock on the land, however, the sharecropper fre-
quently has actual physical possession of the produce. As in
the case of land in the physical possession of the sharecropper,
the sharecropper's physical possession of the produce is subject
to the employer's higher right of ownership and control (158).
In general, the employer can require at any time that the share-
cropper give up possession of the produce; and the sharecropper
cannot, without the employer's consent, sell or otherwise dispose
of any of the produce.
This general rule may also be qualified by Florida statutes in
a manner similar to that described in connection with the em-
ployer's right to possession of the land. It is possible that under
the Florida statutes a sharecropper who has fulfilled his part
of the sharecropping agreement and has not been paid that part
of the produce to which he is entitled can retain possession of
the produce raised under a sharecropping agreement for three
months (159).
Division of the Produce.-One phase of the employer's right
of ownership and control of the produce raised under a share-
cropping agreement is his right to divide the produce and give
the sharecropper his share (160). It should be noted that the
sharecropper does not have the right to divide the produce and
give the employer his share, unless, of course, the employer con-
sents to such a division by the sharecropper.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


The employer is obligated to divide up the produce and give
the sharecropper his share after the sharecropper has fulfilled his
obligations under the sharecropping contract (161). Usually,
the sharecropper's obligations include the production and har-
vesting of the produce. In dividing off the sharecropper's part,
the employer has the right to deduct advances that he has made
to the sharecropper (162). The division of the produce is to be
made in accordance with the terms of the sharecropping con-
tract (163). For example, it may be agreed that the employer
is to divide the crops and livestock in kind or that he may sell
the crops and livestock and pay the sharecropper his share of
the proceeds.
Recovery of the Produce or the Value of the Produce.-
Should the sharecropper interfere with the employer's right of
ownership and control of the produce by withholding possession
or otherwise, the employer can protect his interests by bringing
suit against the sharecropper in trover or replevin. Trover is
the legal name for a lawsuit in which the employer can recover
the value of the crops or livestock wrongfully withheld or sold
by the sharecropper (164). Replevin is the legal name for a
lawsuit in which the employer may recover possession of the
crops or livestock (165). It should be noted that if the share-
cropper has sold produce to another person, then the employer
instead of bringing suit against the sharecropper can bring suit
in trover or replevin against such purchaser (166).
If successful in his lawsuit, the employer can recover not
only possession or the value of the produce, but also certain costs
of court including filing, sheriff's and witness' fees (167). How-
ever, the employer must pay his own attorney's fees, even though
he wins the suit (168). On the other hand, if the sharecropper
should recover judgment, the employer will be liable for court
costs, but the sharecropper will have to pay his own attorney's
fees (169).
Of course, the employer may bring suit in trover or replevin
against the sharecropper only if the sharecropper withholds pos-
session or sells the produce before it is divided. After the pro-
duce is divided and the sharecropper has received his share, the
right of ownership and control of such part belongs to the share-
cropper and the employer cannot successfully bring suit in trover
or replevin (170).
The employer's right to recover possession or the value of
produce raised under a sharecropping agreement may possibly






The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


be limited by Florida statutes that appear to give the sharecrop-
per who is in physical possession of the produce the right to
retain such possession for three months if the employer has not
settled with him (171). This possibility is suggested above in
connection with the discussion of the employer's right of owner-
ship and control of the produce, and it is discussed in detail be-
low as one of the possible ways in which a sharecropper can en-
force his lien for labor. During this three months holding period,
the employer can take certain steps that will enable him to regain
possession. For example, he can offer to pay the sharecropper
his share of the produce and if the sharecropper accepts, the
employer can bring a suit in trover or replevin if the sharecrop-
per refuses to give up possession. If the employer makes the
offer and the sharecropper refuses, the employer can appeal to
the court for relief. Or, if the sharecropper was discharged be-
cause of wrongful or illegal acts, the employer can successfully
appeal to the court for relief.
After the three months period is up, the employer can demand
possession of the crops and livestock, and if the sharecropper
refuses to give up possession, the employer can successfully
bring action in trover or replevin (172). In this case, the court
in all probability will allow the sharecropper to retain his share
of the produce if he has completed his part of the sharecropping
agreement.
It should be noted also that while the sharecropper possibly
has the right to retain the produce during the three months
period, he may not sell it (173). If he desires to sell even what
he believes to be his share of the produce, he should take steps
to obtain the right of ownership in his share through appropri-
ate court action.
Criminal Actions Against Sharecropper.-The empolyer can
institute a criminal suit against a sharecropper who interferes
with the employer's right of ownership and control of the land
and produce. A few of the situations in which a criminal action
can be brought by the employer are as follows:
1. If the sharecropper sells or disposes of any part of the
produce before it is divided, he can be prosecuted for larceny
(174). Of course, after the produce is divided and the share-
cropper receives his share from the employer, the sharecropper
may sell or dispose of his share without being subject to criminal
prosecution for larceny.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


In order to convict the sharecropper of larceny, it must be
proven that he sold or disposed of the produce with the intent
to deprive the employer of his right of ownership or with the
intent to appropriate the produce for the sharecropper's own
use or for any other person (175). Thus, for example, the share-
cropper may successfully defend himself in a prosecution for
larceny of the produce if he can prove that:
a. He honestly believed that the produce belonged to him.
b. He had a right to sell or dispose of the produce.
c. He did so with the employer's consent (176).
If the sharecropper is convicted of larceny of crops and if the
value of the crops is $50.00 or more, he can be punished by a fine
of as much as $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for as long as five
years (177). If the value of the crops is less than $50.00, he
can be punished by a fine of as much as $300.00 or by imprison-
ment for as long as six months (178). On the other hand, if
the sharecropper is convicted of larceny of cattle or hogs, the
law provides that he shall be punished by imprisonment for not
less than two and not more than five years (179).
2. If the sharecropper refuses to depart from the land after
being warned to do so, he can be prosecuted for trespass and, if
convicted, he can be punished by imprisonment not exceeding
six months, or by a fine not exceeding $100.00 (180). However,
it is possible that the sharecropper cannot be prosecuted for
trespass for retaining possession of the land during the three
months that perhaps is permitted by law to enforce his lien for
labor.
3. If the sharecropper willfully and maliciously burns or
otherwise destroys or injures any crops or other materials such
as fences, gates or trees on the farm, he can be prosecuted for
committing a felony and if convicted, he can be punished by im-
prisonment not exceeding five years, or by a fine not exceeding
$5,000.00 (181).

RIGHTS OF SHARECROPPER UNDER A
SHARECROPPING AGREEMENT
A sharecropper is in effect a hired laborer whose wages con-
sist of a part of the crops and livestock he helps to raise with
his labor. As such, his rights are, in general, similar to those
of a laborer who is employed for a specified amount of cash.







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


The more important rights of the sharecropper include the fol-
lowing:
1. Compensation for labor in the form of a share of the
farm produce.
2. Lien for labor against employer's property.
3. Enforcement of lien against employer's property.
4. Breach of contract suit against employer who breaks
sharecropping contract.
5. Criminal action against employer who sells or otherwise
disposes of crops or livestock against which sharecropper has
lien.
Share of the Farm Produce.-The sharecropper's compensa-
tion for his labor in raising crops and livestock for an employer
is a share of such produce (182). The sharecropping agreement
may provide that he is to be paid with a specified part of the
actual crops and livestock raised, or with a part of the proceeds
from the sale of such produce (183).
The sharecropper is entitled to his share of the crops and
livestock produced under a sharecropping agreement when he
has completed all work on the produce that he agreed to perform
and his portion is sufficient to pay for all advances by the land-
lord and leave a remainder (184). Employer advances to a
sharecropper generally include such things as money, feed, seed,
fertilizer and groceries. They are used in growing the farm
produce and in sustaining the sharecropper's family.
When he has completed all the work on the produce that he
agreed to perform, the sharecropper can demand that the em-
ployer account to him for his share after deducting for any of
the employer's advances that remain unpaid (185). If the em-
ployer refuses to make such an accounting, the sharecropper can
sue for breach of contract or he can assert his laborer's lien as
outlined below.
Lien for Labor Against Employer's Property.-As a hired
laborer, a sharecropper in Florida holds a lien for his labor
against his employer's property. This property of the employer
against which the sharecropper's lien applies is as follows:
a. The farm on which the sharecropper works (186).
b. The crops cultivated or harvested by the sharecropper
(187).
c. Animals that the sharecropper feeds or cares for (188).







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


The more important rights of the sharecropper include the fol-
lowing:
1. Compensation for labor in the form of a share of the
farm produce.
2. Lien for labor against employer's property.
3. Enforcement of lien against employer's property.
4. Breach of contract suit against employer who breaks
sharecropping contract.
5. Criminal action against employer who sells or otherwise
disposes of crops or livestock against which sharecropper has
lien.
Share of the Farm Produce.-The sharecropper's compensa-
tion for his labor in raising crops and livestock for an employer
is a share of such produce (182). The sharecropping agreement
may provide that he is to be paid with a specified part of the
actual crops and livestock raised, or with a part of the proceeds
from the sale of such produce (183).
The sharecropper is entitled to his share of the crops and
livestock produced under a sharecropping agreement when he
has completed all work on the produce that he agreed to perform
and his portion is sufficient to pay for all advances by the land-
lord and leave a remainder (184). Employer advances to a
sharecropper generally include such things as money, feed, seed,
fertilizer and groceries. They are used in growing the farm
produce and in sustaining the sharecropper's family.
When he has completed all the work on the produce that he
agreed to perform, the sharecropper can demand that the em-
ployer account to him for his share after deducting for any of
the employer's advances that remain unpaid (185). If the em-
ployer refuses to make such an accounting, the sharecropper can
sue for breach of contract or he can assert his laborer's lien as
outlined below.
Lien for Labor Against Employer's Property.-As a hired
laborer, a sharecropper in Florida holds a lien for his labor
against his employer's property. This property of the employer
against which the sharecropper's lien applies is as follows:
a. The farm on which the sharecropper works (186).
b. The crops cultivated or harvested by the sharecropper
(187).
c. Animals that the sharecropper feeds or cares for (188).







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


The sharecropper's lien is in the nature of a claim against
the employer's property that the courts will recognize if the
sharecropper chooses to assert his rights.
It should be noted that if the farm is rented rather than
owned by his employer, the sharecropper will not have a lien
on the farm unless the actual owner of the farm has in some
way assumed the obligation of paying the sharecropper for his
work. Moreover, where the sharecropper works on a farm that
is rented by his employer, the sharecropper's lien against crops
and livestock raised on the farm will be subject to the landlord's
(owner's) prior lien for rent and advances (189). For example,
assume a situation in which the total value of the farm produce
is $2,000 against which the landlord has a lien of $1,500 and
the sharecropper's claim or lien is in the amount of $1,000.
Then, if the landlord should assert his prior lien, he will get the
full amount of his lien of $1,500, and only $500 will be left to-
ward the payment of the sharecropper's claim of $1,000.
With the exception of the landlord's lien described above,
the sharecropper's lier has priority over all other liens that
accrue after it (190). Moreover, the sharecropper's lien is su-
perior to the lien of anyone who extends credit to the employer
for making a crop, even though the labor lien may not be prior
in time (191). The rights of anyone who purchases an employer-
owned farm on which a sharecropper is currently working will
be subject to the sharecropper's lien for work performed on the
farm up to the date of sale (192). On the other hand, should
anyone purchase harvested crops or livestock from the employer
without actual knowledge of the sharecropper's lien, their pur-
chases will not likely be subject to the sharecropper's lien (193).
After the sharecropper's employment on his employer's farm
is terminated, persons who purchase the farm or extend credit
to the employer can get rights in the employer's farm superior
to the sharecropper's lien. In this situation, the sharecropper
can protect the priority of his lien by filing a notice of his lien
in the office of the clerk of the circuit court in the county where
the farm is located. This notice must be filed within three
months after completion of the sharecropper's employment
(194). Then, anyone who purchases the employer's farm or
extends credit to the employer after this notice is filed will be
subject to the sharecropper's prior lien against the employer's
farm.







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


Enforcement of Lien Against Employer's Property.-In order
to enforce his lien the sharecropper can:
a. Retain possession of the employer's property for three
months (195). As previously discussed, however, certain stat-
utes that appear to give the sharecropper the right to retain pos-
session of the employer's property have not been interpreted by
the Supreme Court of Florida. While it seems possible that the
sharecropper has this right under the statutes, it could be that
our court will not so interpret the statutes.
b. Bring an ordinary suit at law against the employer (196).
c. Bring a summary proceeding at law against the employer.
This summary proceeding is somewhat similar to the distress
proceeding provided for the enforcement of the landlord's lien
given on page 13 (197).
By retaining possession of the employer's farm or of the
crops and livestock for three months, the sharecropper may suc-
ceed in causing the employer to give the sharecropper his part
of the crops and livestock raised under the sharecropping agree-
ment without resorting to a lawsuit. In addition, however, the
sharecropper can also institute an ordinary suit at law or a sum-
mary proceeding to enforce his lien for his share of the farm
produce.
The suit at law or summary proceeding can be instituted
either during the three months in which the sharecropper is hold-
ing the employer's property or within a period of nine months
thereafter (198). Thus, it should be noted that the sharecrop-
per's right to assert his lien through a suit at law or summary
proceeding terminates unless he brings such action within 12
months from the time of performing his work for the employer.
An exception to this general rule applies in the case of the share-
cropper's lien against the employer's land. The sharecropper
must assert his lien against the employer's land by starting a
suit at law or a summary proceeding either (a) within 12 months
of the time of performing his work for the employer, or (b)
within 12 months of the time of filing notice of his lien against
the employer's land (199). The sharecropper can file notice of
his lien against the land within three months of the time of per-
forming his work. If he files such a notice, then he has 12 months
from the date of filing in which to institute suit to enforce his
lien against the land.
If the sharecropper is successful in an ordinary suit at law,
he will recover his share or the value of his share of the produce







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


plus certain costs of court, including filing, sheriff's and witness'
fees, but not his attorney's fees (200). On the other hand, if
the sharecropper is successful in a summary proceeding he will
also recover an allowance for attorney's fees equal to 15 percent
of the value of the produce plus costs of court (201).
The possibility that a sharecropper can retain possession of
his employer's property for three months if the sharecropper's
wages are due and payable seems to be indicated by certain
Florida statutes (202). These statutes provide that one with
a lien, such as the sharecropper's lien for labor against the em-
ployer's land and crops and livestock raised under a sharecrop-
ping agreement, can retain possession of the property upon which
he has a lien if he were in possession at the time the lien attached.
It may be that our Supreme Court will consider the sharecrop-
per's physical possession as an employee enough for the purposes
of the statute to enable him to retain physical possession for
three months. If this is true, it seems likely that a sharecropper
can retain possession of his employer's land or of crops and live-
stock produced under the sharecropping agreement when:
1. He already has physical possession of such property.
2. He has not been given the share of the produce to which
he is entitled after deducting the employer's advances. If the
sharecropper's share of the produce is less than the employer's
advances, of course, the sharecropper will not be entitled to any-
thing and he cannot legally retain possession of the employer's
property.
3. He has fulfilled his part of the sharecropping agreement,
which usually includes producing and harvesting crops and rais-
ing livestock. Even though the sharecropper has not fulfilled
his part of the sharecropping agreement, if his failure to do so
was because of his wrongful discharge by the employer, he may
still have the right to retain possession.
4. The employer has had an opportunity and reasonable time
in which to settle with the sharecropper.
Should the sharecropper choose to assert his lien by retaining
possession of his employer's property, the employer can regain
the right to possession by offering to the sharecropper his part
of the produce raised under the sharecropping agreement. If
the sharecropper accepts the offer, the right of possession to
the employer's property will again belong to the employer; and
the employer can assert this right through appropriate court
action if the sharecropper refuses to give up possession. If the







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


sharecropper refuses to accept the share of the produce offered,
the employer can appeal to the courts for relief. Or, if the share-
cropper was discharged because of wrongful or illegal acts, then
the employer can probably regain possession by appealing to the
courts.
After the sharecropper has retained possession of the em-
ployer's property for the three months period that may possibly
be allowed by law, the right to possession of the property again
belongs to the employer. Should the sharecropper refuse to give
up possession at the expiration of that time, the employer can
assert his right of possession through appropriate court action
(203).
Sometimes the sharecropper will have reason to believe that
crops and livestock upon which he has a lien are about to be re-
moved from the county. In this situation, the sharecropper can
protect his interests by getting the appropriate court to restrain
the removal of the crops and livestock subject to the sharecrop-
per's lien; or if the sharecropper has already brought suit to
enforce his lien, he can get the court to take custody of the prop-
erty through an attachment (204).
Breach of Contract Suit Against Employer.-If the employer
fails to carry out his part of the sharecropping agreement, the
sharecropper can bring suit against him for breach of contract.
Acts of the employer that constitute a breach of contract include
the following:
a. Wrongful discharge of the sharecropper without cause
(205).
b. Sale of the farm accompanied by eviction of the share-
cropper. (206).
c. Failure to furnish the sharecropper with advances and
supplies as agreed upon under the agreement (207).
d. Failure to deliver to the sharecropper his share of the
crop (208).
In order to win his suit and collect damages, the sharecropper
may be required to show that he has fully complied with his part
of the sharecropping agreement (209). The measure of such
damages probably will be the sharecropper's share of the crop
that could have been raised with good, husband-like farming
practices-less the value of advances made by the employer
(210). In addition to damages, the sharecropper can also recover
certain costs of court including filing, sheriff's and witness' fees.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


However, even though he wins the suit, the sharecropper must
pay his own attorney's fees (211).
It should be noted that although the sharecropper is wrong-
fully discharged, it is his duty to leave the farm (212). If he
refuses to leave, he may be liable to the employer as a trespasser
(213). Should the sharecropper desire redress for his wrongful
discharge, he can bring suit for breach of contract; but he should
not continue to remain on the farm unless, of course, he retains
possession for a period of not more than three months to enforce
his lien for labor as described above.
Criminal Action Against Employer.-The sharecropper can
institute a criminal action against the employer if the employer:
a. Without the written consent of the sharecropper pledges,
mortgages, sells, or otherwise disposes of any part of the crops
or livestock on which the sharecropper has a lien for his labor.
b. Without the written consent of the sharecropper removes
or causes the crops or livestock to be removed from the county
where the lien was created.
c. With the intent to defeat, hinder or delay the enforcement
of the sharecropper's lien for labor, hides, conceals or transfers
the crops or livestock.
If the employer is convicted of the crime he will be punished
by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding
one year (214).

TABLE OF CITATIONS
1. Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33, 200 So. 226 (1941).
2. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01-.04 (1955).
3. Sharp v. Williams, 141 Fla. 1, 192 So. 476 (1939).
4. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01 (1955).
5. Fla. Stat. Sec. 689.01 (1955).
6. Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 49, 53 (1938).
7. Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
8. Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


However, even though he wins the suit, the sharecropper must
pay his own attorney's fees (211).
It should be noted that although the sharecropper is wrong-
fully discharged, it is his duty to leave the farm (212). If he
refuses to leave, he may be liable to the employer as a trespasser
(213). Should the sharecropper desire redress for his wrongful
discharge, he can bring suit for breach of contract; but he should
not continue to remain on the farm unless, of course, he retains
possession for a period of not more than three months to enforce
his lien for labor as described above.
Criminal Action Against Employer.-The sharecropper can
institute a criminal action against the employer if the employer:
a. Without the written consent of the sharecropper pledges,
mortgages, sells, or otherwise disposes of any part of the crops
or livestock on which the sharecropper has a lien for his labor.
b. Without the written consent of the sharecropper removes
or causes the crops or livestock to be removed from the county
where the lien was created.
c. With the intent to defeat, hinder or delay the enforcement
of the sharecropper's lien for labor, hides, conceals or transfers
the crops or livestock.
If the employer is convicted of the crime he will be punished
by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding
one year (214).

TABLE OF CITATIONS
1. Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33, 200 So. 226 (1941).
2. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01-.04 (1955).
3. Sharp v. Williams, 141 Fla. 1, 192 So. 476 (1939).
4. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01 (1955).
5. Fla. Stat. Sec. 689.01 (1955).
6. Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 49, 53 (1938).
7. Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
8. Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).








The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping

Brock v. Haley and Co., 88 S.C. 373, 70 S.E. 1011 (1911).
9. Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
State v. Sanders, 110 S.C. 487, 96 S.E. 622 (1918).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Carpenter v. Strickland, 20 S.C. 1 (1883).
10. Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
State v. Sanders, 110 S.C. 487, 96 S.E. 622 (1918).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Richey and Miller v. DuPre, 20 S.C. 6 (1883).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 49, 53 (1938).
11. Hancock v. Boggus, 111 Ga. 884, 36 S.E. 970 (1900).
Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
12. Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 49, 53 (1938).
13. Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
State v. Sanders, 110 S.C. 487, 96 S.E. 622 (1918).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Carpenter v. Strickland, 20 S.C. 1 (1883).
14. Williams v. Mitchem, 151 Ga. 227, 106 S.E. 284 (1921).
15. McNealy and Roulhac v. State, 17 Fla. 198 (1879).
16. State v. Karel, 131 Fla. 305, 180 So. 3 (1937).
17. 15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 35 (1938).
18. Lufkin v. Daves, 220 Ala. 443, 125 So. 811 (1930).
19. McNealy and Roulhac v. State, 17 Fla. 198 (1879).
20. Uhrig v. Redding, 150 Fla. 480, 8 So. 2d 4 (1942).
Lott, Inc. v. Padgett, 153 Fla. 308, 14 So. 2d 669 (1943).
Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37, 24 So. 2d 718 (1946).
68 Corp. Jur. Sec., Partnership, Sec. 1, 17-19, 87, 89 (1950).
21. Taylor v. Dauthry, 75 Fla. 319, 78 So. 267 (1918).
Dubos v. Jones, 34 Fla. 539, 16 So. 392 (1894).
22. Uhrig v. Redding, 150 Fla. 480, 8 So. 2d 4 (1942).
Dubos v. Jones, 34 Fla. 539, 16 So. 392 (1894).
23. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01-.02, .04 (1955).
24. DeVore v. Lee, 158 Fla. 608, 30 So. 2d 924 (1947).








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Richart v. Roper, 156 Fla. 822, 25 So. 2d 80 (1946).
25. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.04 (1955).
26. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.03 (1955).
27. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01 (1955).
28. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.03 (1955).
29. Waln v. Howard, 142 Fla. 736, 196 So. 210 (1940).
30. 51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 138, 142 (1947).
31. Baker v. Clifford-Mathew Inv. Co., 99 Fla. 1229, 128 So. 827 (1930).
32. Pillans and Smith Co. v. Lowe, 117 Fla. 249, 157 So. 649 (1934).
33. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01 (1955).
34. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.01-.02 (1955).
35. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.02 (1955).
36. Fla. Stat. Sec. 689.01 (1955).
37. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.04 (1955).
38. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.04 (1955).
39. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.08, .20 (1955).
State v. Ward, 135 Fla. 885, 185 So. 846 (1939).
40. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.08 (1955).
41. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.10 (1955).
42. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.11-.19, 86.01-.06 (1955).
43. Fla. Stat. Sec. 818.01, .03 (1955).
44. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.05, .20, 821.31 (1955).
45. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.20 (1955).
46. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.06 (1955).
47. Fla. Stat. Sec. 821.31 (1955).
Coleman v. State, 119 Fla. 653, 161 So. 89 (1935).
48. Knabb v. Hill, 111 Fla. 272, 149 So. 335 (1933).
Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 92 Fla. 347, 109 So.
424 (1926).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 261 (1947).
49. Florida Athletic and Health Club v. Royce, 160 Fla. 27, 33 So. 2d
222 (1948).
Hewitt v. State, 108 Fla. 335, 146 So. 578 (1933).
Goffin v. McCall, 91 Fla. 514, 108 So. 556 (1926).
Fla. Stat. C. 82.
50. See note 39, supra.
51. Robinson v. L'Engle, 13 Fla. 482 (1870).
Ward v. Bull, 1 Fla. 271 (1847).
52. Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1954).
Stenor, Inc. v. Lester, 58 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1951).
Williams v. Aeroland Oil Co., 155 Fla. 114, 20 So. 2d 346 (1944).
53. Wheat v. Watson, 57 Ala. 581 (1877).
Sledge v. Potts, 202 Miss. 480, 32 So. 2d 262 (1947).
54. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.08 (1955).
55. Fla. Const., Art. X, Sec. 1.
56. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.09 (1955).
57. Hodges v. Cooksey, 33 Fla. 715, 15 So. 549 (1894).
58. Howard v. Calhoun, 155 Fla. 689, 21 So. 2d 361 (1945).
59. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.10 (1955).
60. Blanchard v. Raines' Ex'x, 20 Fla. 467 (1884).








The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


61. Cathcart v. Turner, 18 Fla. 837 (1882).
62. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.04 (1955).
63. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.11-.19 (1955).
64. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.11 (1955).
65. Owens v. Wilson, 58 Fla. 335, 50 So. 674 (1909).
66. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.12 (1955).
67. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.12 (1955).
68. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.13 (1955).
69. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.14 (1955).
70. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.18 (1955).
71. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.16 (1955).
72. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.18 (1955).
73. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.18 (1955).
74. Shavers v. Duval County, 73 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1954).
Domer v. Red Top Cab and Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So. 2d 160
(1948).
Fla. Stat. C. 58.
75. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.18 (1955).
76. See Note 74, supra.
77. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.17 (1955).
78. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.19 (1955).
79. United States v. One Chevrolet Truck 1934 Model, Ga. 79 F. 2d 651
(1935).
Duval Jewelry Company v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878 (1931).
80. Fla. Stat. Sec. 818.01, .03 (1955).
81. Gray v. Callahan, 143 Fla. 673, 197 So. 396 (1940).
82. Baker v. Clifford-Mathew Inv. Co., 99 Fla. 1229, 128 So. 827 (1930).
83. Gray v. Callahan, 143 Fla. 673, 197 So. 396 (1940).
State v. Ward, 135 Fla. 885, 185 So. 846 (1939).
84. Ehrlich v. Barbatsis Holding Co., 63 So. 2d 911 (1953).
Colonial Hotels, Inc. v. Maynard, 158 Fla. 318, 29 So. 2d 28 (1946).
85. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.05, .20 (1955).
State v. Ward, 135 Fla. 885, 185 So. 846 (1939).
86. Glynn v. Roberson, 58 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1952).
87. Kantner v. Safran, 68 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1953).
88. McLean v. Spratt, 19 Fla. 97 (1882).
89. Baker v. Clifford-Mathew Inv. Co., 99 Fla. 1229, 128 So. 827 (1930).
90. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.20 (1955).
91. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.20 (1955).
92. Garcia v. Pardo, 63 Fla. 429, 57 So. 974 (1912).
93. Jacques v. Wellington Crop., 133 Fla. 819, 183 So. 22 (1938).
94. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.21 (1955).
95. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.22 (1955).
96. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.24 (1955).
97. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.25, .26 (1955).
98. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.23 (1955).
99. Fla. Stat. C. 82 (1955).
100. Fla. Stat. Sec. 82.14 (1955).
101. Fla. Stat. Sec. 82.14 (1955).








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


102. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.06 (1955).
West's Drug Stores v. Allen Inv. Co., 125 Fla. 823, 170 So. 447 (1936).
103. Fla. Stat. Sec. 821.31 (1955).
104. Coleman v. State, 119 Fla. 653, 161 So. 89 (1935).
105. See note 48, supra.
106. Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 92 Fla. 347, 109 So.
424 (1926).
107. 56 Am. Jur., Waste, Sec. 16-29 (1947).
67 Corp. Jur. Sec., Waste, Sec. 11-19 (1950).
108. Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 92 Fla. 347, 109 So.
424 (1926).
109. Knabb v. Hill, 111 Fla. 272, 149 So. 335 (1933).
Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 92 Fla. 347, 109 So.
424 (1926).
110. 51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 263 (1947).
111. Rogers v. Martin, 87 Fla. 204, 99 So. 551 (1924).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 264 (1947).
112. 51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 264 (1947).
113. Gray v. Callahan, 143 Fla. 673, 197 So. 396 (1940).
Baker v. Clifford-Mathew Inv. Co., 99 Fla. 1229, 128 So. 827 (1930).
Rogers v. Martin, 87 Fla. 204, 99 So. 551 (1924).
114. Heaton v. Slaten, 25 Ala. App. 81, 141 So. 267 (1932).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 308 (1947).
115. Coleman v. State, 119 Fla. 653, 161 So. 89 (1935).
Pillans and Smith Co., Inc. v. Lowe, 117 Fla. 249, 157 So. 649 (1934).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 308, 131, 175 (1947).
116. Jordan v. Henderson, 258 Ala. 419, So. 2d 379 (1953).
Townsend v. Bussey, 30 Ala. App. 259, 4 So. 2d 199 (1941).
Killian v. Hall Auto Co., 25 Ala. App. 518, 149 So. 716 (1933).
Harris v. State, 25 Ala. App. 215, 143 So. 242 (1932).
Heaton v. Slaten, 25 Ala. App. 81, 141 So. 267 (1932).
Dekle v. Calhoun, 60 Fla. 53, 53 So. 14 (1910).
Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 53 (1872).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
Bethany v. State, 124 Miss. 870, 87 So. 410 (1921).
Schoenlau-Steiner Trunk Top and Veneer Co. v. Hildebrand, 152 Tenn.
166, 274 S.W. 544 (1925).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 348 (1947).
117. 15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 24, 25 (1938).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 349 (1947).
118. Hood v. Foster, 194 Miss. 812, 13 So. 2d 652 (1943).
32 Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 219-223 (1941).








The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


119. McFadden-Deauville Hotel, Inc. v. Murrell, 182 F. 2d 537 (5th Cir.
1950).
Coleman v. State, 119 Fla. 653, 161 So. 89 (1935).
Pillans and Smith Co., Inc. v. Lowe, 117 Fla. 249, 157 So. 649 (1934).
Fressell v. Nichols, 94 Fla. 403, 114 So. 431 (1927).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 30, 31, 131, 175 (1947).
52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 803 (1947).
32 Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 320, 395 (1941).
120. See note 114, supra.
121. 51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 301 (1947).
122. McClosky v. Martin, 56 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1951).
Hankins v. Smith, 103 Fla. 892, 138 So. 494 (1931).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 323 (1947).
123. Harvey Corp. v. Universal Equipment Co., 158 Fla. 644, 29 So. 2d 700
(1947).
Rogers v. Standard Oil Co., 130 Fla. 674, 178 So. 427 (1938).
Brooks Co. v. Long, 67 Fla. 68, 64 So. 452 (1914).
124. Fla. Stat. C. 82 (1955).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 308 (1947).
125. 51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 318 (1947).
126. University Apartments, Inc. v. Uhler, 84 Ga. App. 720, 67 S.E. 2d
201 (1951).
Lindsey v. Zibilich, 153 So. 341 (La. 1934).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 319 (1947).
127. Fla. Stat. C. 82 (1955).
Abrams v. Watson, 59 Ala. 524 (1877).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 320 (1947).
128. Price v. Osborne, 24 Tenn. App. 525, 147 S.W. 2d 412 (1940).
Cross v. Breland, 185 So. 542 (La. 1939).
Hankins v. Smith, 103 Fla. 892, 138 So. 494 (1931).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 321 (1947).
129. W. E. Stephens Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Buntin, 27 Tenn. App. 411, 181 S.W.
2d 634 (1944).
Hannan v. Dusch, 154 Va. 356, 153 S.E. 824 (1930).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 323-325 (1947).
130. See note 115, supra.
131. See note 116, supra.
132. First National Bank of Dothan v. The Federal Land Bank of New
Orleans, 225 Ala. 387, 143 So. 567 (1932).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 348 (1947).
133. Townsend v. Bussey, 30 Ala. App. 259, 4 So. 2d 199 (1941).
Bethany v. State, 124 Miss. 870, 87 So. 410 (1921).
Schoenlau-Steiner Trunk Top and Veneer Co. v. Hildebrand, 152 Tenn.
166, 274 S.W. 544 (1925).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 54 (1947).
134. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.08-.19 (1955).
135. Townsend v. Bussey, 30 Ala. App. 259, 4 So. 2d 199 (1941).
Heaton v. Slaten, 25 Ala. App. 81, 141 So. 267 (1932).
Williams v. Sykes, 170 Miss. 88, 154 So. 727 (1934).
36 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 1948 (1943).







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 811, 814, 822 (1947).
136. Riddle v. Hodge, 83 Ga. 173, 9 S.E. 786 (1889).
DeVaughn v. Howell, 82 Ga. 336, 9 S.E. 173 (1889).
DeLaigle v. Shuptrine, 28 Ga. App. 380, 110 S.E. 920 (1922).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 348 b (1947).
38 Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 568 (1941).
137. 51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 349 (1947).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 24, 25 (1938).
138. Coleman v. State, 119 Fla. 653, 161 So. 89 (1935).
Pillans and Smith Co., Inc., v. Lowe, 117 Fla. 249, 157 So. 649 (1934).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 349 (1947).
139. Higgins v. State, 58 Ga. App. 480, 199 S.E. 158 (1938).
32 Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 219-223 (1941).
140. Fla. Stat. Sec. 821.10, .14 (1955).
32 Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 219-223 (1941).
141. McFadden-Deauville Hotel, Inc. v. Murrell, 182 F. 2d 537 (5th Cir.
1950).
Frissell v. Nichols, 94 Fla. 403, 114 So. 431 (1927).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 30, 31, 131 (1947).
142. Coleman v. State, 119 Fla. 653, 161 So. 89 (1935).
Pillans and Smith Co., Inc. v. Lowe, 117 Fla. 249, 157 So. 649 (1934).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 175 (1947).
143. Crump v. Tolbert, 210 Ark. 920, 198 S.W. 2d 518 (1946).
52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 803 (1947).
32 Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 320, 395 (1941).
144. McFadden-Deauville Hotel, Inc. v. Murrell, 182 F. 2d 537 (5th Cir.
1950).
Frissell v. Nichols, 94 Fla. 403, 114 So. 431 (1927).
51 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 31, 33 (1947).
145. Thompson v. Sun Oil Company, 135 Fla. 731, 185 So. 837 (1939).
Anderson v. Tower Amusement Co., 120 Fla. 476, 163 So. 11 (1935).
146. 52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 528, 529 (1947).
147. Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
State v. Sanders, 110 S.C. 487, 96 S.E. 622 (1918).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Carpenter v. Strickland, 20 S.C. 1 (1883).
148. Williams v. Mitchem, 151 Ga. 227, 106 S.E. 284 (1921).
149. Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 61 (1938).
150. Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
Shepard v. State, 45 Ga. App. 519, 165 S.E. 320 (1932).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
151. McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).








The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


152. Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 801, 807 (1947).
153. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.04 (1955).
154. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.01, .02 (1955).
155. Fla. Stat. Sec. 821.01 (1955).
Marshall v. Matthews, 149 Ga. 370, 100 S.E. 103 (1919).
156. Fla. Stat. C. 784 (1955).
C.I.T. Corp. v. Brewer, 146 Fla. 247, 200 So. 910 (1941).
Schumpert v. Moore, 24 Tenn. App. 695, 149 S.W. 2d 471 (1940).
157. DeLoach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S.E. 204 (1904).
Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
State v. Sanders, 110 S.C. 487, 96 S.E. 622 (1918).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Richey and Miller v. DuPre, 20 S.C. 6 (1883).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 53 (1938).
158. Ruose v. Wooten, 104 N.C. 229, 10 S.E. 190 (1889).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 45 (1938).
159. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.10, .16, 86.01, .02 (1955).
160. Rouse v. Wooten, 104 N.C. 229, 10 S.E. 190 (1889).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 54 (1938).
161. Brown v. Coleman, 39 Ga. App. 172, 146 S.E. 512 (1929).
52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 812 (1947).
162. Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Hackney v. State, 101 Ga. 512, 28 S.E. 1007 (1897).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
State v. Sanders, 110 S.C. 487, 96 S.E. 622 (1918).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894).
163. 52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 812 (1947).
164. Garrett v. American Fruit Growers, Inc., 135 Fla. 398, 186 So. 269
(1938).
Shaw v. Saunders, 79 Fla. 846, 85 So. 162 (1920).
Quitman Naval Stores Co. v. Conway, 63 Fla. 253, 58 So. 840 (1912).
Crews v. Roberson, 62 Ga. App. 885, 10 S.E. 2d 114 (1940).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 66 (1938).
165. Fla. Stat. C. 78 (1955).
Richbourg v. Rose, 53 Fla. 173, 44 So. 69 (1907).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 58, 65 (1938).
166. Wilson Cypress Co. v. Logan, 120 Fla. 124, 162 So. 489 (1935).
Wright v. Skinner, 34 Fla. 453, 16 So. 335 (1894).
Franklin v. Tanner, 34 Ga. App. 254, 129 S.E. 114 (1925).
Kirkland v. Wallace, 29 Ga. App. 238, 114 S.E. 649 (1922).
167. Fla. Stat. C. 58 (1955).
168. See note 74, supra.








46 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

169. See note 74, supra.
170. Thompson v. Price, 30 Ga. App. 653, 118 S.E. 598 (1923).
52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 812e (1947).
171. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.10, .16, 86.01, .02 (1955).
172. Ocala Foundry and Machine Works v. Lester, 49 Fla. 199, 38 So. 51
(1905).
173. Fla. Stat. C. 86 (1955).
53 Corp. Jur. Sec., Liens, Sec. 12 (1948).
174. Fla. Stat. C. 811 (1955).
McKenna v. State, 119 Fla. 576, 161 So. 561 (1934).
State v. Sanders, 110 S.C. 487, 96 S.E. 622 (1918).
175. Fla. Stat. Sec. 811.021 (1) (1955).
Masters v. State, 159 Fla. 617, 32 So. 2d 276 (1947).
176. Kilbee v. State, 53 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1951).
Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 328, 25 So. 2d 801 (1946).
Helton v. State, 135 Fla. 458, 185 So. 864 (1938).
177. Fla. Stat. Sec. 811.01 (1955).
178. Fla. Stat. Sec. 811.02 (1955).
179. Fla. Stat. Sec. 811.11, .14 (1955).
180. Fla. Stat. Sec. 821.01 (1955).
181. Fla. Stat. Sec. 806.08 (1955).
182. Taylor v. Coney, 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897).
Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892 (1888).
Appling v. Odom, 46 Ga. 583 (1872).
Souter v. Cravy, 29 Ga. App. 557, 116 S.E. 231 (1923).
McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S.C. 511, 19 S.E. 140 (1894)
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
15 Am. Jur., Crops, Sec. 49, 53 (1938).
183. 52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 812 (1947).
184. Brown v. Coleman, 39 Ga. App. 172, 146 S.E. 512 (1929).
Jennings v. Lanham, 19 Ga. App. 79, 90 S.E. 1038 (1916).
52 Corp. Jur. Sec., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 812c (1947).
185. See note 184, supra.
186. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.04 (1955).
187. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.10 (1955).
188. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.16 (1955).
189. Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.08, .10 (1955).
190. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.01 (1955).
191. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.22 (1955).
Georgia Crate and Basket Co. v. Gardner, 58 So. 2d 545 (1952).
192. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.25 (1955).
Phillips v. Atwell, 76 Fla. 480, 80 So. 180 (1918).
193. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.25 (1955).
194. Fla. Stat. Sec. 85.25 (1955).
195. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.02 (1955).
196. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.04 (1955).
197. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.06 (1955).
198. Ocala Foundry and Machine Works v. Lester, 49 Fla. 199, 38 So. 51
(1905).
199. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.11, 85.25 (2)(a) (1955).







The Laws of Farm Tenancy and Sharecropping


200. Fla. Stat. C. 58 (1955).
Shavers v. Duval County, 73 So. 2d 684 (1954).
Dorner v. Red Top Cab and Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So. 2d 160
(1948).
201. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.06 (4)(6) (1955).
202. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.01, .02 (1955).
203. Ocala Foundry and Machine Works v. Lester, 49 Fla. 199, 38 So. 51
(1905).
204. Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.08 (1) (1955).
205. Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
206. Wideman v. Selph, 71 Ga. App. 343, 30 S.E. 2d 797 (1944).
Phillips v. Atwell, 76 Fla. 480, 80 So. 180 (1918).
207. Perdue v. Cason, 22 Ga. App. 284, 96 S.E. 16 (1918).
208. Carswell v. Smith, 145 Ga. 588, 89 S.E. 698 (1916).
Miller v. Eagle Star and British Dominion Insurance Co., 146 S.C.
123, 143 S.E. 663 (1928).
Allen v. Orr, 113 S.C. 348, 101 S.E. 817 (1920).
209. Taylor v. Rainwater, 54 Ga. App. 315, 187 S.E. 704 (1936).
210. Wideman v. Selph, 71 Ga. App. 343, 30 S.E. 2d 797 (1944).
211. See note 74, supra.
212. Marshall v. Matthews, 149 Ga. 370, 100 S.E. 103 (1919).
Clark v. Harry, 182 Va. 410, 29 S.E. 2d 231 (1944).
213. Marshall v. Matthews, 149 Ga. 370, 100 S.E. 103 (1919).
214. Fla. Stat. Sec. 818.01, .03 (1955).








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


This is the 26th in a series of publications summarizing the results of
studies conducted under the sponsorship of the Southeast Regional Land
Tenure Committee which was organized in 1946. Members of this com-
mittee at present are H. J. Bonser (Chairman), Tennessee; B. F. Alvord,
Alabama; W. T. Fullilove, Georgia; H. B. James, North Carolina; G. H.
Aull, South Carolina; W. L. Gibson, Jr., Virginia; H. G. Hamilton, Florida;
B. T. Lanham, Alabama; Joseph Ackerman and H. G. Diesslin, Farm Foun-
dation; F. H. Maier, Regional Project Leader; M. M. Tharp, United States
Department of Agriculture; and H. N. Young, Administrative Adviser.
This bulletin was prepared under the direction of a subcommittee on
the Legal Aspects of Farm Tenancy. Members of this subcommittee were
J. R. Greenman (Chairman), Florida; B. F. Alvord, Alabama; W. T. Fulli-
love, Georgia; W. L. Gibson, Jr., Virginia; and H. H. Ellis, Production
Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
Grateful appreciation is acknowledged to other members of the Tenure
Committee for their advice and counsel; and to Professor James W. Day,
College of Law, University of Florida, for reviewing the manuscript and
making many helpful suggestions.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs