Blythe v. Embry
| Decision Date | 28 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 385 |
| Citation | 36 Ala.App. 596,61 So.2d 142 |
| Parties | BLYTHE v. EMBRY. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Richard H. Cocke, Alexander City, for appellant.
Tom F. Young, Alexander City, for appellee.
The complaint below was in the common counts. The defendant entered a plea of general issue in short by consent. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor and fixed his damages at $400. Defendant's motion for a new trial being overruled an appeal was perfected to this court.
The plaintiff testified that he and defendant had entered into an oral contract whereby plaintiff was to do certain grading on some land owned by the defendant.
According to the plaintiff the defendant wanted his tract of land graded so that it would have an eighteen inch crown, 'the water draining both ways.' The plaintiff at first wanted to do the job by the hour, but defendant wanted to know what it would cost. The plaintiff then told him he would do the job for $2,400, provided that if the the lower part of the lot did not drain out after the ditching then the grade could be raised. Plaintiff asserts that the defendant then told him keep up with what it cost to do the ditching, 'and if it doesn't drain out where we can go ahead with it, the work, I will pay you off.'
Plaintiff testified that he did do the ditching, keeping up with the costs thereof. The ditching however did not render the low places on the tract dry enough to work them with a tractor, as a tractor would not 'stand up in there.'
At this point the plaintiff asserted that the defendant insisted that he go on with the original plan to put in an eighteen crown, and would not permit plaintiff to raise the grade, which plaintiff offered to do. The plaintiff thereafter rendered the defendant a bill for $452 for the cost of the ditching.
The defendant testified that the plaintiff was to grade the lot, and put an eighteen inch crown thereon for $2,400; that the plaintiff did some preliminary ditching, then abandoned the work, and never did finish the work; and that the partial performance on plaintiff's part resulted in no benefit to him, the defendant.
The appellant (defendant below) has made three assignments of error. They all however relate to the court's refusal to give certain charges requested by the defendant, these charges being affirmative in nature.
It is the contention of counsel for appellant that error resulted from the refusal of such charges for the reason that the case is within the doctrine that where a party, without sufficient cause, abandons a contract, leaving unperformed the work contracted for, he cannot recover on the common counts; such recovery being permitted only where the contract has been fully executed and nothing remains but the payment of money. See Varner v. Hardy, 209 Ala. 575, 96 So. 860; Maxwell and Delehomme v. Moore, 163...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AC, Inc. v. Baker
...covering various parts." 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 390 (1991); see Kirkland v. Oates, 25 Ala. 465, 467 (1854); Blythe v. Embry, 36 Ala.App. 596, 597, 61 So.2d 142, 143 (1952). If the agreements in this case constituted several, separate annual agreements under which Johnston and JJW prepare......
-
George Moulton, Inc. v. Langan
...is severable, citing: Stewart v. Weaver, 12 Ala. 538; Wolfe v. Parham, 18 Ala. 441; Kirkland v. Oates, 25 Ala. 465; and Blythe v. Embry, 36 Ala.App. 596, 61 So.2d 142. As we understand the cited cases none of them holds that, because a contract is severable, a party to the contract is entit......
-
Gregory v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
...of paragraph 2.1(b)(i) of the contract that accrued within six years prior to commencement of this action. See, Blythe v. Embry, 36 Ala.App. 596, 61 So.2d 142, 143 (1952). Chem Waste then argues that because Plaintiffs' revenue calculations are not broken down into pre-April 15 and post-Apr......
-
White v. Jackson
... ... Under these circumstances an action would lie under the common counts. Blythe v. Embry, ... Ala.App., 61 So.2d 142; Ludden & Bates v. Watt, 18 Ala.App. 652, 94 So. 239; Martin v. Massie, 127 Ala. 504, 29 So. 31; McCormick v ... ...