
    Hughes vs. Stewart.
    Whether one worked a plantation as a partner or as a mere cropper or hired hand, who was to work f.or half the crop, is immaterial in this case; after the crop was divided, the title (o the half set apart to him became his, and the other party had no title thereto and could not recover it in trover. If the latter had any claim for advances, his remedy was to sue therefor.
    Judgment affirmed.
    March 10, 1885.
    
   Jackson, Chief Justice.

[Hughes and Stewart farmed together, or Stewart “worked with” Hughes, on halves, during the year 1883. Hughes furnished the land and stock and fed the stock. Stewart did the work. They were to divide the crop equally. Hughes furnished Stewart supplies, as plaintiff claimed. Defendant contested the alleged debt. The crop was divided, each taking his half. There was no agreement that Stewart’s half of the crop should belong to Hughes until supplies were paid for, but Hughes “ thought the law made Stewart’s half of the crop his (Hughes’s) until supplies were paid for.” Hughes brought trover for the crop in order to collect this debt. The justice decided in favor of Hughes. Stewart appealed to a jury. The jury gavea verdict for$41.15 in favor of Hughes. Stewart took the case by certiorari to the superior court. The judge of the superior court, considering it a question of law only, sustained the certiorari, and gave final judgment, basing his-ruling on the ground that the 'evidence did not show title m Hughes. Hughes excepted.]  