Blackburn v. McLaughlin
Decision Date | 19 December 1918 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 675 |
Citation | 202 Ala. 434,80 So. 818 |
Parties | BLACKBURN v. McLAUGHLIN et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County; B.M. Miller, Judge.
Bill by James T. Blackburn against Rowena McLaughlin and others. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
A.W Stewart, of Marion, and R.B. Evins, of Greensboro, for appellant.
Nathan L. Miller and Needham A. Graham, Jr., both of Birmingham, and William L. Hogue, of Marion, for appellees.
Blackburn who was complainant in the court below, takes this appeal from the decree by which the court sustained defendants' demurrer to his amended bill of complaint. In 1907 the parties had entered into an agreement in writing by which defendants leased to complainant a tract of land in Perry county. The fifth clause of the contract stipulated as follows:
May 3, 1916, complainant mailed from Marion the following letter:
Receiving no reply, complainant, still within ten years of the date of the contract, filed this bill for a specific performance, averring in third paragraph:
Defendants (appellees) contend that there has never been any acceptance of the offer contained in the option, and therefore that there is no contract to be enforced. It may be conceded that the letter which complainant wrote to the owners of the property. parties also to the contract, was a counter proposition rather than an unqualified exercise of his option according to its precise terms; but that does not necessarily deny the equity of the bill, for the right to specific performance in a court of equity grows out of the contract, not out of a breach of it by defendant, and when complainant avers his readiness, willingness, and ability to perform, he avers all that is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Jones v. Sommerville, 1 Port. 437; Broughton v. Mitchell, 64 Ala. 210; Long v. Addix, 184 Ala. 236, 63 So. 982.
It is urged in support of the decree that the contract which complainant sought to enforce was unilateral, and, in any event, that the language of the contract, viz., "upon the execution and delivery by said party of the second part [complainant] of his note *** secured by good and sufficient mortgage on said land," made the tender of note and mortgage a condition precedent to complainant's right to a conveyance, and that complainant's bill was fatally defective for that he failed therewith to make the necessary tender. In respect to the first branch of this contention, it may be said generally that, although there may be a lack of mutuality in the beginning, this may be cured by the unbound party subsequently binding himself also by promise or act. 9 Cyc. 333; Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Hall Coal & Coke Co., 101 Ala. 446, 14 So. 672. As covering the contention in both aspects, we prefer to quote the language of Chief Justice Beasley in Richards v. Green, 23 N.J.Eq. 536:
"It is true that there are exceptions to the rule that a court of equity will not perform unilateral contracts, as, for instance, in those cases where an agreement, which the statute of frauds requires to be in writing, has been signed by one of the parties only" (such a case we considered in Wood v. Lett, 195 Ala. 601, 71 So. 177) "or when the contract, by its terms, gives to one party a right to the performance which it does not confer upon the other, an example of which is exhibited in *** a lease for years which gives an option to the lessee to purchase during the term"--just the case here....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Securities Corporation v. Welton
...to perform his contract obligation, this is sufficient under our cases. Martin v. Baines, 217 Ala. 326, 116 So. 341; Blackburn v. McLaughlin, 202 Ala. 434, 80 So. 818; Carlisle v. Carlisle, 77 Ala. Appellant's further insistence is that tender is not sufficiently averred; no averment of a f......
-
Baker v. Howison
... ... 458, 46 ... So. 473; Smith v. Sherman, 174 Ala. 531, 56 So. 956; ... McKleroy v. Tulane, 34 Ala. 78 ... In ... Blackburn v. McLaughlin, 202 Ala. 434, 436, 80 So ... 818, the bill was for specific performance growing out of the ... contract and not out of a breach of ... ...
-
Cowin v. Salmon
... ... who seeks the performance. Homan v. Stewart, 103 ... Ala. 644, 16 So. 35; Blackburn v. McLaughlin, 202 ... Ala. 434, 80 So. 818 ... But ... "the court exercises discretion in granting or ... withholding a decree of ... ...
-
Milton Realty Co. v. Wilson
... ... does readiness, willingness, and ability to perform as to ... what is found just and right in the premises (Blackburn ... v. McGlaughlin, 202 Ala. 434, 80 So. 818; Simmons v ... Henderson, 207 Ala. 692, 93 So. 624; Enslen v ... Woodlawn, etc., Co., 210 Ala. 40, ... ...