EMBLEMENTS (Fr. embler, or emblaver, sow with corn. The profits of the land sown). The of a tenant to take and carry, away, after, tenancy has ended, such annual products of the land as have resulted from his own care and labor. The term is also applied to the crops themselves. Co. Litt. 55 b; 4 H. & J. 139 ; 3 B. & Ald. 118; Reiff v. Reiff, 64 Pa. 134.
It is a privilege allowed to tenants for life, at will, or from year to year, because of the uncertainty of their estates and to encourage husbandry. If, however, the tenancy is for years, and its duration depends upon no con tingency, a tenant when .he sows a crop must know whether his term will continue long enough for him to reap it, and is not per mitted to re-enter and cut it after his term has ended ; 4 Bingh. 202; Whitmarsh v. Cut ting, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 361; Debow v. Col fax, 10 N. J. L. 128; Gossett v. Drydale, 48 Mo. App. 430. Whenever a tenancy, other than at sufferance, is from the first of un certain duration and is unexpectedly termi nated without fault of the tenant, he is en titled to emblements; Gardner v. Lanford, 86 Ala. 508, 5 South. 879.
This privilege extends to cases where a lease has been unexpectedly terminated by the act of God or: the law; that is, by some unforeseen event which happens without the tenant's agency ; as, if a lease is made to husband and wife so long as they continue in that relation, and they are afterwards divorced by a legal sentence, the husband will be entitled to emblements; Oland's case, 5 Co. 116 b; or where the lessee of a tenant for life has growing crops unharvested at the time of the latter's death, he is entitled to them ; Bradley v. Bailey, 56 Conn. 374, 15 Atl. 746, 1 L. R. A. 427, 7 Am. St. Rep. 316; Edghill v. Mankey, 79 Neb. 347, 112 N. W. 570, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 688; Hoagland v. Crum, 113 Ill. 365, 55 Am. Rep. 424. A simi lar result will follow if tile landlord, having the power, terminates the tenancy by notice to quit; Cro. Eliz. 460; but not where, under the terms of the lease, the landlord re-enters and takes possession because the tenant fails to pay rent ; Gregg v. Boyd, 69 Hun 588, 23 N. Y. Supp. 918. See other cases of uncer tain duration, Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 112 ; 8 Viner, Abr. 364. But it is otherwise if.the tenancy is determined by an act of the tenant which works a forfeiture; as if, being a woman, she has a lease for a term of years provided she remains so long single, and she terminates it by marrying; 2 B. & Ald. 470; Lane v. King, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 584, 24 Am. Dec. 105a A landlord who re-enters for a forfeiture takes the emble ments ; 7 Bingh. 154. Where a tenant wrong fully retains possession of land after his term has expired, crops planted by him so long as they remain unsevered, belong to the landlord; Kleiman v. Geiselmann; 45 Mo. App. 505. See LANDLORD AND TENANT.
All such crops as in the ordinary course of things return the labor and expense be stowed upon them within the current year necome the subject of emblements,—consist ing of grain, peas, beans, hemp, flax, and annual roots, such as parsnips, carrots, tur nips, and potatoes as well as the artificial grasses, which are usually renewed like oth er crops. But such things as are of sponta neous growth, as roots and trees not annual, and the fruit on such trees, although ripe, and grass growing, even if ready to cut, or a second crop of clover, although the first crop taken before the end of the term did not re pay the expense of cultivation, do not fall within the description of emblements ; Cro.
Car. 515; Cro. Eliz. 463; 1Vhitmarsh v. Cut ting, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 361; Co. Litt. 55 ti ; TayL Landl. & T. § 534; Woodf. Landl. & T. 750.
But although a tenant for years may not be entitled to emblements as such, yet by the custom of the country, in particular districts, he may be allowed to enter and reap a crop which he has sown, after his lease has ex pired; Dougl. 201; 16 East 71; 7 Bingh. 465. The parties to a lease may, of course, regu late all such matters by an express stipula tion; but in the absence of such stipulation it is to be understood that every demise is open to explanation by the general usage of the country where the land lies, in respect to all matters about which the lease is si lent; and every person is supposed to be cog nizant of this custom and to contract in ref erence to it; Stultz v. Dickey, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 285, 6 Atu. Dec. 411. The rights of tenants, therefore, with regard to the away-going crop, will differ in different sections of the country ; thus, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey a tenant is held to be entitled to the grain sown in the autumn before the expira tion of his lease, and coming to maturity in the following summer ; Mitch. R. P. 24; Clark v. Harvey, 54 Pa. 142 ; Hudson v. Por ter, 13 Conn. 59; Howell v. Schenck, 24 N. J. L. 89 ; while in Delaware the same custom is said to prevail with respect to wheat, but not as to oats; Templeman v. Biddle, 1 Harr. (Del.) 522; and trespass will lie against one who interferes with the land to the injury of the outgoing tenant; Clark v. Banks, 6 Houst. (Del.) 584.
Of a similar nature would be the tenant's right to remove the manure made upon the farm. during the last year of the tenancy. Good husbandry requires that it should ei ther be used by the tenant on the farm, or left by him for the use of his successor; and such is the general rule on the subject in England as well as in this country ; Middle brook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 169; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 142. A different rule has been laid down in North Carolina ; 2 Ired. 326; but it is clearly at variance with the whole current of Ameri can authorities upon this point. See MA NURE. Straw, however, is incidental to the crop to which it belongs, and may be remov ed in all cases where the crop may be; Fobes v. Shattuck, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 568; Craig V. Dale, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 509, 37 Am. Dec. 477.
There are sometimes, also, mutual privi leges, in the nature of emblements, which are founded on the common usage of the neighborhood where there is no express agreement to the contrary, applicable to both outgoing and incoming tenants. Thus, the outgoing tenant may by custom be entitled to the privilege of retaining possession of the land on which his away-going crops are sown, with the use of the barns and stables for housing and carrying them away ; while the incoming tenant has the privilege of en tering during the continuance of the old ten ancy for the,purposes of ploughing and ma nuring the land. But, independently of any custom, every tenant who is entitled to em blements has a right of ingress, egress, and regress to cut and carry them away, and the same privilege will belong to his vendee,— neither of them, however, having any ex clusive right of possession. See Wintermute v. Light, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 278; Tayl. Landl. & T. § 543; Woodf. Landl. & T. 754; LAND LORD AND TENANT; AWAY-GOING CROP; GROW ING CROPS.