Bransford v. Glennon

• Citation: 216 Ala. 72,112 So. 341
• Decision Date: 14 April 1927
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 426
• Parties: BRANSFORD v. GLENNON et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

112 So. 341

216 Ala. 72

BRANSFORD v. GLENNON et al.

1 Div. 426

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 14, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claude A. Grayson, Judge.

Action by James K. Glennon and another against the First National Bank of Mobile, in which Johnson Bransford was substituted as the sole party defendant by agreement. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Gaillard Mahorner & Arnold, of Mobile, for appellant.

Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE J.

The action is on common counts for money due to the plaintiff. The original defendant, the First National Bank of Mobile had received $2,000 from the plaintiff to be held on deposit but, upon being notified by Bransford Realty Company and Johnson Bransford that they claimed the fund, the bank withheld payment to the depositor, and after suit was filed against it suggested those parties as claimants. The Realty Company disclaimed, and by agreement Johnson Bransford was substituted for the bank as sole party defendant.

The $2,000 in question was money paid to plaintiffs either by Johnson Bransford, or by Bransford Realty Company of which he was the president, for an option to purchase 306 shares of corporate stock of the Montrose Hotel Company, representing in full the assets of the company consisting of real estate. Plaintiffs' claim is that the money, under the terms of the option contract, which was not exercised by the purchaser, became the property of plaintiffs. The defendant Bransford, claims it by virtue of plaintiffs' breach--as alleged--of their obligation to furnish to the optionee an abstract of title showing a title that was satisfactory.

The record exhibits 29 assignments of error, all based upon rulings on the evidence. The brief for appellant makes no reference whatever to any of these assignments, sets out nothing in explanation or illustration of the rulings assigned, and, indeed, does not refer to any of the rulings in any way. Under the head of "Propositions and Authorities," the brief states abstractly 8 separate propositions of law, all but one of which relate either to the sufficiency of an abstract of title, or to the admissibility of parol evidence to aid in the interpretation or construction of a written contract.

Supreme Court rule 10 (Code 1923, vol. 4, p. 882) declares:

"Appellant's brief shall contain a concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents every error and exception relied on, referring to the pages of the transcript. *** Following this statement, the

...