Alabama Water Co. v. City of Anniston, 7 Div. 172.
Decision Date | 26 October 1933 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 172. |
Citation | 151 So. 457,227 Ala. 579 |
Parties | ALABAMA WATER CO. et al. v. CITY OF ANNISTON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1933.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R. B. Carr, Judge.
Bill for specific performance of a contract by the City of Anniston against the Alabama Water Company and the Central Union Trust Company. From a decree for complainant respondents appeal.
Corrected and affirmed and remanded.
Cabaniss & Johnston, of Birmingham, and Knox, Acker, Sterne & Liles of Anniston, for appellants.
James Fouche Matthews, of Anniston, for appellee.
The several decisions in this case are reported as City of Anniston v. Alabama Water Co., 207 Ala. 497, 93 So. 409; Alabama Water Co. v. City of Anniston, 215 Ala. 120, 110 So. 36; Id., 217 Ala. 271, 116 So. 124; Id., 223 Ala. 355, 135 So. 585.
We take judicial knowledge of the proceeding of that case in this court. Cogburn v. Callier, 213 Ala. 38, 104 So. 328, Catts v. Phillips, 217 Ala. 488, 117 So. 34.
This appeal is from a decree on the merits and before the reference and report of the register as a guide to that official on the accounting.
A question that is again urged on this appeal is the premature filing of the bill by the city. We adhere to the former holding on this phase of the case, Alabama Water Co. et al. v. City of Anniston, 223 Ala. 355, 360, 135 So. 585, 590.
After the last decision, the appellee, on August 8, 1931, amended its bill, basing the municipality's rights on the original contract of June 20, 1910, by Anniston Water Supply Company, as supplemented and modified by the written agreement of June 3, 1920, and presented in the answer.
In that last consideration the majority of the court modified the opinion, saying:
Mr. Justice Brown concurred, saying: "* * * The decree of the circuit court, in so far as it granted relief on the basis of the original contract of 1910, was correct, but that appellants should have been required to account on equitable principles, not as trustees ex maleficio, and that the contract should be construed as embracing the entire system as within the contemplation of the parties, and that the decree of the court should be so modified as to protect the interests of both parties." (Italics supplied.)
On rehearing this opinion was modified, and the application for rehearing was overruled.
In view of this observation, we may note that a trustee ex maleficio is one who, being guilty of wrongful or fraudulent conduct is held by equity to the duty and liability of a trustee, in relation to the subject-matter, to prevent him from profiting by his own wrong. Black's Dictionary of Law; Bouvier's Law Dictionary. This is the statement, or effect, of the text of Mr. Pomeroy quoted in Kent v. Dean, 128 Ala. 600, 609, 610, 30 So. 543, 546, and Parrish v. Parrish, 33 Or. 486, 54 P. 352, to the following effect: ."
See, also, Butler v. Watrous, 185 Ala. 130, 139, 64 So. 346; Manning v. Pippen, 86 Ala. 357, 364, 5 So. 572, 11 Am. St. Rep. 46; Christy, Rec'r, v. Sill, 95 Pa. 380; Huxley v. Rice, 40 Mich. 73; Dray v. Dray, 21 Or. 59, 27 P. 223; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U.S. 122, 9 S.Ct. 447, 32 L.Ed. 878; Jones v. Van Doren, 130 U.S. 684, 9 S.Ct. 685, 32 L.Ed. 1077; Lincoln v. Wright, 4 De Gex & Jones's Rep. p. 12.
The rule of liability on a decree of specific performance and recovery in equity for such trustee is thus stated: 3 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) § 1058.
Would this rule be harsh in its application to a case like that for decision-to account for rents, income, and profits from the filing of the plea of non est factum on June 16, 1922, though that plea was withdrawn on December 13, 1928? Each case must be adjudged by its own facts. This is of general recognition, and in the note to 3 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) § 1058, Professor John Norton Pomeroy observes: "There are instances, where the trustee has acted in good faith, in which a court of equity would only hold him accountable for what he had actually received, and would not charge him with proceeds or profits which he might have received, nor with compound interest, etc. See Barnes v. Taylor, 30 N. J. Eq. 7; Greenwood's Appeal, 92 Pa. 181."
In Greenwood's Appeal, 92 Pa. 181, 184, 185, the court said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnston v. Johnston
...55 So.2d 838 ... 256 Ala. 485 ... 4 Div. 674 ... Supreme Court of Alabama ... Dec. 21, ... Whetstone, 75 Ala. 495, 502; Title 7, section 40, Code of 1940 ... meaning as is stated in the case of Alabama Water Co. v. City of Anniston, 227 Ala. 579, 151 So ... Elrod, 233 Ala. 340, 172 So. 104; Loftin v. Smith, 251 Ala. 202, 36 So.2d ... ...
-
Coral Gables, Inc. v. Patterson
... ... 649 CORAL GABLES, Inc., v. PATTERSON. 3 Div. 142Supreme Court of AlabamaJanuary 23, 1936 ... purchase lots 1 to 7 of block 20 of the Biltmore Section of ... Coral ... Totten, 222 ... Ala. 174, 131 So. 435; Alabama Water Co. et al. v. City ... of Anniston, 227 ... ...
-
Middleton v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co.
... ... ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. 1 Div. 775.Supreme Court of AlabamaJanuary 18, 1934 ... Railway Co. v ... Sayre, 72 Ala. 443; City Council of Montgomery v ... Townsend, 80 Ala ... that the Gulf, Florida & Alabama Railroad Company laid its ... tracks thereupon ... or possession of these lands (Alabama Water Co. v. City ... of Anniston (Ala. Sup.) 151 So ... ...
-
Maya Corporation v. Smith
... ... v. SMITH ET AL. 8 Div. 6. Supreme Court of Alabama December 5, 1940 ... Morgan v. Lewis, 203 Ala. 47, 82 So. 7; 58 ... Corpus Juris 1236, note 99; 66 Corpus ... Alabama Water Co. v. City of Anniston, 227 Ala. 579, ... at ... 880; Emens v. Stephens, 233 Ala. 295, ... 172 So. 95; Leath v. Lister, 233 Ala. 595, 173 So ... ...