Pierce

In this action to recover possession of certain farming property, plaintiff, the owner of the property, obtained judgment and the defendant Walter appeals.

The complaint was in the usual form, alleging plaintiff’s ownership of and right of possession to the property, and that defendant was in the unlawful possession thereof. The answer consisted merely of denials of the allegations of the complaint, except as to plaintiff’s ownership, which was admitted. The controversy arose over the fact that the written lease under which defendant went into possession of the property contained no provision fixing the term of the tenancy. It was based on a crop rental, and the two main provisions relating thereto were substantially in the same form, one of them being as follows: “ . . . that the said lessors shall receive one-fourth of all the produce and products of said farm the first year and one-third of all the produce and products thereafter of said farm whether the same be beans or alfalfa or any other crop.” Defendant claimed at the trial, however, that an oral agreement had been entered into at the time the lease was executed to the effect that his tenancy was to continue three years,…