tering into a discussion of the customary conditions under
which land is rented on shares it may be helpful to point out the
fundamental differences between cash rent, crop rent and share rent.
In case of cash rent, the landlord takes no risk, either as to the
price or the amount of product. In the case of crop rent, he shares
the risk as to the variation in price, but not as to the amount of
crop raised. The latter may depend upon the clemency of the weather or
upon the industry and skill of the tenant. In the case of share rent,
both landlord and tenant share equally as to variation in the price
and the amount of product.

Three forms of share rent may be recognized:

(a) Where landlord furnishes only real estate (land and buildings),
the tenant supplying everything else, including teams, machinery,
labor, seeds and fertilizers. Under these conditions it is customary
for the landlord to receive one-third and the tenant two-thirds of the
crop raised or the product produced.

(b) The second form of share rent is where the landlord furnishes the
real estate; the tenant supplies teams, tools and labor, while the
landlord and tenant own equally all live stock other than teams, and
bear equally all other expenses, as for seeds, fertilizers and cost of
threshing. Under this system, it is customary for landlord and tenant
each to receive one-half of all sales. As each owns one-half of all
the live stock (teams excepted), each shares equally in all increase.
The landlord pays for the cost of permanent improvements such as new
buildings, fences, repairs and drainage. The tenant, in making these
improvements, in some cases, agrees to furnish two days' labor for one
day's pay. The theory is that, while the increased value of the real
estate is of advantage only to the landlord, the improved facilities
are of some benefit to the tenant. Since he can do this work at odd
times when not otherwise employed, he can afford to take a generous
view of the matter. It is obvious that if he remains on the farm long
enough the tenant will come into his share of the benefit, while if he
intends to leave the farm soon he may not. There is in the mind of the
writer a prosperous tenant who, after eighteen years on a single farm,
declared he had no desire to make a change, and doubtless there are
thousands of similar instances.

Under the plan in which the tenant furnishes everything except the
real estate, the tendency of the farm is apt to b