Bruner v. Ramsburg

Stewart, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. The first exception presents the question, whether the record in the cause in equity, operated as a bar to the recovery of the plaintiffs in this action. The plaintiffs having brought this action of assumpsit, upon the demand of the defendant filed a bill of particulars, claiming specifically the value of a crop of wheat sold by the defendant. The issue involved the plaintiffs’ right to the crop of wheat.

The record relied upon as the bar to the action, shows the plaintiffs had bought the land upon which the crop of wheat was grown, subject to the right of Wm. H. Rams-burg, the tenant, to cut and secure the growing crop. The righ tof the plaintiffs, as purchasers of the land at the sale of the trustee, must be held as qualified and limited by the reservation made and reported by the trustee, and ratified by the Court. ⁵⁶⁸ This has been decided in State, use of Bruner, et al. vs. Ramsburg, et al., ante page 325. The report of the trustee, which was a written instrument, contained the reservation, and its purport and effect must be construed by the Court according to its tenor and effect, and resort to parol proof to vary its tenor, would be against the general rule applicable to the construction of written instruments.

This is the rule. Williams vs. Woods, Bridges & Co., 16 Md , 221. The reservation expressly recognized the right of the tenant to cut and secure the growing crop at the time of the sale, and of course, excluded the right of the plaintiffs' to the crop, whatever might be their rights as purchasers of the land, to claim for its use and occupation in any pertinent proceeding. The claim of the plaintiffs to the crop, was