Chandler v. Bodeker
Decision Date | 16 May 1929 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 348. |
Citation | 122 So. 435,219 Ala. 357 |
Parties | CHANDLER v. BODEKER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker Judge.
Bill for specific performance of a contract by Fred J. Bodeker against J. E. Chandler. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondent appeals. Affirmed.
Thos J. Wingfield, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Mullins & Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The bill is for specific performance of a contract to convey lands. The seller sues. The appeal is from a decree overruling demurrers to the bill.
The contract in writing clearly setting forth the obligations of both parties is made exhibit to the bill as part thereof.
The occasion for filing the suit appears in section 3 of the bill as follows:
Some twenty grounds of demurrer were assigned. They go mainly to the generality of the averments touching performance on the part of the seller.
Want of specific averment that the abstract of title brought down to date, or a title insurance policy, was furnished, that a good and merchantable title was shown, that complainant had such title, that the bill is doubtful in that in the body of the bill only the ten acres are described as the subject-matter, while the exhibit shows a right of way appurtenant thereto was granted, that it is not shown the right of way was included in the deed tendered, that the name of the grantor in the deed is not given, that it is not averred the deed was made and executed, according to law, are among alleged defects insisted upon.
It is a declared rule that in cases of specific performance clear and definite averments of fact, not mere conclusions, are required. In some cases the general statement is made that a general allegation of performance on the part of complainant is insufficient as against demurrer. Gentry v. Rogers, 40 Ala. 442; Hart v. McClellan, 41 Ala. 251; Roquemore & Hall v. Mitchell Bros., 167 Ala. 475, 52 So. 423, 140 Am. St. Rep. 52; Daniel v. Collins, 57 Ala. 625; Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala. 287, 4 So. 748.
These general announcements mean no more than that the bill shall by averments of fact make certain to a common intent that a valid, enforceable contract exists, the terms thereof, and performance by complainant on his part or a sufficient excuse for nonperformance, accompanied with averments showing he is able and willing to perform, and offers so to do. Eaton v. Sadler, 215 Ala. 161, 110 So. 10; Irvin v. Irvin, 207 Ala. 493, 93 So. 517; Milton Realty Co. v. Wilson, 214 Ala. 143, 107 So. 92; Blackburn v. McLaughlin, 202 Ala. 434, 80 So. 818; Simmons v. Henderson,
207 Ala. 692, 93 So. 624; Penney v. Norton, 202 Ala. 690, 81 So. 666; Melton v. Stuart, 213 Ala. 574, 105 So. 659; Cox v. Hutto, 216 Ala. 232, 113 So. 40.
In this case the only condition precedent on the part of the seller was furnishing an abstract of title showing a good merchantable title, or a title insurance policy.
Other acts, such as making a proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coral Gables, Inc. v. Patterson
...Hansell, 66 Ala. 151; Taylor v. Newton et al., 152 Ala. 459, 44 So. 583; Donald v. Reynolds, 228 Ala. 513, 154 So. 530. Chandler v. Bodeker, 219 Ala. 357, 122 So. 435, the necessary pleading for a bill for specific performance must show a valid and enforceable contract exists, terms thereof......
-
Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F & A M, No. 1071530 (Ala. 11/13/2009)
...of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.11 Penick also relies extensively on the following rule set forth in Chandler v. Bodeker, 219 Ala. 357, 359, 122 So. 435, 436 (1929), another case predating the Alabama Rules of Civil "[A] general allegation of [contract] performance on the part of co......
-
Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F & A M of Alabama, Inc., No. 1071530 (Ala. 3/19/2010)
...of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.11 Penick also relies extensively on the following rule set forth in Chandler v. Bodeker, 219 Ala. 357, 359, 122 So. 435, 436 (1929), another case predating the Alabama Rules of Civil "[A] general allegation of [contract] performance on the part of co......
-
Christian v. Rabren
...excuse for nonperformance, accompanied with averments showing he is able and willing to perform, and offers so to do. Chandler v. Bodeker, 219 Ala. 357, 122 So. 435. The question here is whether the averments of the bill show that the respondents entered into a contract which bound them to ......