Bell v. Teague

• Decision Date: 01 March 1888
• Parties: BELL v. TEAGUE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 861

85 Ala. 211

BELL v. TEAGUE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 1, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Calhoun county; LEROY F. BOX, Judge.

This was an action brought by the appellee, E. W. Teague, against the appellant, Richard Bell, to enforce a contractor's lien on a house, and the property on which it is built. The complaint contained the common counts for work and labor done, and then contained a count seeking to enforce the lien under the statute. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not sufficiently show a cause of action. The court overruled this demurrer of the defendant and the defendant duly excepted. The evidence, as appears from the bill of exceptions, tended to show that the plaintiff had made a contract with the defendant for the erection of such a house as described in the complaint before the bringing of the present suit, and the complaint contained the contract; that the plaintiff filed his contract with the defendant, together with a true account, etc., in the office of the probate judge; and that all the statutory requirements to secure a contractor's lien had been performed. It appeared from the evidence that after the plaintiff had filed the contract, account, etc., in the probate office, and there had been an abstract of the same made in the book kept for the purpose in the said probate office, the plaintiff took the original contract, and so forth, out of the office. This being shown by the evidence the defendant objected to the introduction of the original papers in evidence, on the ground that the statutory requirements had not been conformed to, and that the plaintiff had not secured unto himself the lien allowed him under the statute, on his doing certain things prescribed by the statute. The court overruled this objection, and the defendant objected. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that he did not contract with the plaintiff in his individual capacity, but as agent of the Garfield Memorial Union Association; that the house as built by the plaintiff was not according to the contract, and was not constructed in a workman-like manner. The defendant asked the court to give the following charges to the jury in writing: "(1) If the jury believe from the evidence that Bell, as the agent of the Garfield Memorial Union Association, contracted with Teague for the building of said house, and that Teague knew at the time of making said contract that Bell was thus acting, or in possession of such facts as were sufficient to put him on inquiry as to the capacity in which Bell was acting, the plaintiff cannot recover in this case. (2) If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff did not in good faith try to carry out the contract, (if the jury believe from the evidence that he made a contract to build a house for defendant personally,) and that plaintiff intentionally, and without sufficient reason, failed to comply with the terms of the contract, then he is not entitled to recover, and the jury must find for the defendant. (3) If the jury believe from the evidence that Bell, as the agent of the Garfield Memorial Union Association, contracted with Teague for the building of the house in question, and that Teague knew at the time of making such contract that Bell was thus acting, plaintiff cannot recover in this action. (4) If there is no evidence before you that Bell owned the land on which said house is located the plaintiff is not entitled to a lien on said house...