The setting for the next story is Minnesota. The actors are Tenant (T), Landlord (L), and Bank (B).
T is a tenant farmer in Minnesota. L is the landlord. The agreement between T & L provides that L is entitled to 1/3 of T's crop at harvest. When the corn is harvested, Tenant is to designate the 1/3 that goes to Landlord and give it to him.
T borrows money from B in anticipation of the harvest. The loan secured by T's crops. The corn grows and T harvests it.
After the harvest L drops over to his farm, and T, pointing to a pile of corn, states, "This here's your share of the corn, Lovely Landlord." L loads that pile of corn in his wagon and takes it home.
T defaults on the loan. B seizes the 2/3 of corn that is still in T's hands. B asks L to give it the other 1/3, but L refuses. L asserts that the corn is his.
B brings an action to recover the 1/3 portion of the corn in L's hands. At the trial L offers to testify to T's statement to him, "This here's your share of the corn, Lovely Landlord."
B objects, "Hearsay."
The trial court overrules the objection.
(a) First explain why T's statement looks like hearsay.(b) Then explain why the trial court overruled B's objection.
(i) Please give a black-letter explanation for the court's ruling.(ii) Please give a policy-oriented explanation for the result.
••You need to make some assumptions about Minnesota law to construct the above two explanations.(c) Find one or more hearsay exceptions that seem to cover T's statement to L.
Cf. Hanson v. Johnson, 161 Minn. 229 (1924)(words constituting a partition).