Angel v. Simpson

• Decision Date: 21 February 1888
• Citation: 85 Ala. 53,3 So. 758
• Parties: ANGEL v. SIMPSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 758

85 Ala. 53

ANGEL v. SIMPSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 21, 1888

Appeal from chancery court, Lauderdale county; THOMAS COBBS Chancellor.

This bill was filed by Robert T. Simpson to compel the specific performance of the following agreement between him and James M. Angel, the defendant:

"Agreement between J. M. Angel and R. T. Simpson. R. T. Simpson sells to J. M. Angel four hundred acres of land in Colbert reserve, for $4,500.00, to be paid as follows: Angel to assume two mortgages amounting to $3,000.00, and to make Simpson a deed to the house and lot now occupied by James H. Henham, and to pay Simpson $125.00.

"11-27 1885.

J. M. ANGEL.

"Accepted: R. T. SIMPSON."

No answer was filed by appellant, and a decree pro confesso was rendered against him. The bill set out the agreement, and alleges that Angel took possession of a certain tract, which is described as being in the "Colbert Reserve;" that Simpson took possession of a certain house and lot in Florence, also described in the bill as the house occupied by James H. Henham. The bill further alleges that Simpson and his wife executed a deed to the certain tract of land described in the bill as in the "Colbert Reserve" to Angel, and delivered it to him; that Simpson prepared a deed for Angel and his wife to sign, thereby conveying to him the house and lot described in the bill, as the house and lot occupied by James H. Henham; and that Angel refused to sign the said deed so prepared by him; and that Angel refused to pay complainant the $125, according to his agreement, or do anything else towards fulfilling the said agreement.

It was proved by parol evidence that the only land owned by Simpson in the "Colbert Reserve" was the land he conveyed to Angel, and that Angel went into possession of the said land; and that the only house and lot the said James M. Angel owned in the town of Florence was the house and lot occupied by the said James H. Henham, and that the complainant took possession of the said house and lot, and rented it again to the said Henham. It is contended by appellant's counsel, that the agreement was void for uncertainty, and that specific performance cannot, therefore, be compelled thereon; that the agreement cannot be explained, and the conveyance be made certain by parol evidence; and that as there was no time specified when the $125 was to be paid, the court could not compel its payment.

J. B. Moore and Emmett O'Neal, for appellant.

Simpson & Jones, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

1. The case of Meyer v. Mitchell, 75 Ala 475, is conclusive of the present case on the main point relied on by appellant's ...