City of Birmingham v. Forney

• Decision Date: 11 May 1911
• Citation: 55 So. 618,173 Ala. 1
• Parties: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. FORNEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

55 So. 618

173 Ala. 1

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. FORNEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 11, 1911

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Benners Chancellor.

Suit by J. C. Forney against the City of Birmingham for specific performance of a contract. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The facts made by the bill are that Forney held options to purchase from the owner thereof certain described lands; that the option was running in the name of one M. V. Henry, or his assigns, who was in truth and in fact acting for orator in the transaction; that the options were in full force and effect on the 14th day of December, 1908, and that on that day the respondent corporation, becoming aware that the tract of land could be secured for the purpose of the city and desiring such tract of land, entered into negotiations with the owner for the purchase of it, but that before said negotiations were closed respondent had full, complete, and accurate notice of the right of complainant under his said options; and that respondents contended that, as orator was a member of the board of aldermen of respondent, he had no rights in the premises which respondent was bound to respect and so, in defiance of the rights of complainant, concluded negotiations for the purchase, and purchased and became the owner of the property. The offer is then made to comply with the options and to pay what is due to complete the purchase with a prayer for specific performance, together with certain interrogatories. The demurrer is that there is no equity in the bill.

R. H Thach, for appellant.

A. Latady, for appellee.

DOWDELL C.J.

The bill is in the nature of a bill for the specific performance of a contract. A general demurrer for want of equity was filed to the bill, and from the decree of the chancellor, overruling the demurrer, this appeal is prosecuted.

If the appellant's grantor had not parted with the legal title to the land, no one would question the right of the appellee on the facts averred in the bill, to compel such grantor, in a bill for that purpose in a court of equity, to convey title to the appellee. The respondent, the appellant here, having purchased the land with full knowledge of the existing contract of its grantor and of the appellee's rights as alleged in the bill, can occupy no higher ground than its grantor. In equity it simply takes the place of its grantor...