Clanton v. Scruggs

• Decision Date: 05 April 1892
• Citation: 10 So. 757,95 Ala. 279
• Parties: CLANTON v. SCRUGGS ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

10 So. 757

95 Ala. 279

CLANTON v. SCRUGGS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 5, 1892

Appeal from chancery court, Clarke county; THOMAS W. COLEMAN Chancellor.

Action by Burrell A. Clanton against W. A. Scruggs and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. S. Anderson, for appellant.

Wm. D. Dunn and Pillans, Torrey & Hanaw for appellees.

WALKER J.

In 1881, a Mrs. Foster owned a tract of land in Clarke county, which included what is known as the "Coffeeville Warehouse and Landing Property on the Tombigbee River." William L. Scruggs, one of the defendants to the bill in this case, and an appellee here, owned a strip of land on the river adjoining and immediately below Mrs. Foster's tract, and on which was a public ferry, owned and conducted by him. Burrell A. Clanton, the complainant in the bill and the appellant here, proposed to Scruggs to join him in the purchase of Mrs. Foster's land, and in carrying on the warehouse business thereon. Scruggs declined this proposition, but, as alleged in the bill as amended, "said Scruggs said further, however, that he hoped orator would purchase the Coffeeville warehouse, and carry on the business. Said William L. Scruggs stated further to orator, as an inducement to his purchasing said Coffeeville warehouse and landing, that, if orator would purchase said warehouse and landing, and would store all of his (Scruggs') freight free of charge, and be responsible for it just as if he was paid storage, that he would promise orator that he never would put up a warehouse on his little strip of land immediately below Coffeeville landing himself, and he would never suffer any one else to put up a warehouse on said land. Orator then told said defendant Scruggs that this arrangement was entirely satisfactory to him, that he accepted it, and that he would carry it out." It is shown by the bill as amended that the complainant, acting under this contract and agreement with Scruggs, very shortly thereafter purchased Mrs. Foster's tract of land, erected a new warehouse and other improvements thereon, and from February, 1882, carried on there the warehouse business, and received and stored freight for Scruggs free of charge, as provided by the agreement with him; that the agreement with Scruggs was a great part of the inducement to the complainant for the undertaking. It is further shown by the amended bill that in 1887 Scruggs permitted his son and son-in-law, who are parties defendant, and were fully aware of the agreement above mentioned, to erect a warehouse on his land referred to in the agreement, and they are conducting a warehouse business therein in opposition to the business of the complainant. The purpose of the bill is to have the defendants restrained from conducting the warehouse business on the land of Scruggs above mentioned. It is charged that the conduct of that business causes irreparable injury to the business of the complainant. The demurrers to the bill as amended were sustained, and, the complainant declining to amend his bill further, it was dismissed.

It clearly appears from the averments of the bill as amended that the alleged agreement between the complainant and W. L Scruggs was oral, and was not evidenced by any writing. That being the case, the question of the effect of the statute of frauds upon the validity of the contract is properly raised by a demurrer. A privilege which the proprietor of one tenement has, in respect to a neighboring tenement, to require the owner of the latter or servient tenement to suffer to be done or to abstain from doing something on his own lands for the benefit or advantage of the owner or proprietor of the former or dominant tenement, is an easement or servitude. A common form of such an easement or servitude is the prohibition of the proprietor of the servient estate from erecting or permitting the erection of a certain character of structure thereon, or from carrying on, or permitting to be carried on, a particular kind of business or occupation thereon. McMahon v. Williams, 79 Ala. 288. The right of the dominant owner, in such case, is an interest in the servient estate; and a contract for the sale of such an interest is a contract for the sale of an interest in lands,...