Comer v. Franklin
Decision Date | 24 November 1910 |
Citation | 169 Ala. 573,53 So. 797 |
Parties | COMER v. FRANKLIN. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; W. H. Thomas, Judge.
Action by E. R. Franklin against N. B. Comer. From a judgment sustaining demurrers to certain pleas, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Hill Hill & Whiting, for appellant.
Tyson Wilson & Martin, for appellee.
Plaintiff (appellee) sued for the recovery of a sum of money which he had paid to defendant on a contract for the purchase of the furnishings then and since in the Capitola Hotel, which defendant had been keeping, and which, along with its furnishings, went into the possession of the plaintiff upon the agreement of sale. The allegation was that the sale had been induced by defendant's false representation that he owned the subject-matter of the contract of sale, whereas in fact a large part of the furnishings belonged to a third person. The complaint, reduced at last to count 7a, avers that in the month of July, 1908, plaintiff learned of the third person's ownership, and that thereupon within a reasonable time he "offered to rescind and to disaffirm said contract, and notified the defendant of his intention to rescind said contract, and then and there offered to deliver to said defendant all of the defendant's said goods wares, and furniture so sold to him by defendant, and did thereupon demand of the defendant that he repay to him the said sum of $400 theretofore paid by plaintiff, which said defendant refused to do; and plaintiff avers that, since the said offer to rescind said contract as aforesaid, defendant's said goods, wares, and furniture have been at all times up to the bringing of this suit in the said Capitola Hotel, subject to the order of the defendant."
Pleas A and B reiterate the contract and plaintiff's payment of money thereon, and alike proceed: "Thereafter the plaintiff, on, to wit, July 20, 1908, discovered and learned that the defendant did not own all of said goods, wares, and furniture mentioned in said contract and agreed to be sold as aforesaid, and was not the owner of the following goods, wares, and furniture mentioned in said contract, to wit" (setting out those articles which the defendant was alleged not to own). Plea A concludes: "And plaintiff, with full knowledge of said facts, continued to hold and to keep all of said property mentioned in said contract, and exercise dominion over the same as his own, and continued so to do up to, to wit, May 5, 1909, the time of the bringing of this suit." Plea B concludes:
It appears of record that demurrers to these pleas were sustained, but the grounds of demurrer are not shown. It must therefore be presumed that their defects, if any, were pointed out ore tenus. Central...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Hix
... ... Standard ... Motor Car Co. v. McMahon, 82 So. 188; King v ... Livingston Mfg. Co., 180 Ala. 127, 60 So. 143; Comer ... v. Franklin, 169 Ala. 573, 577, 53 So. 797; Shahan ... v. Brown, 167 Ala. 534, 52 So. 737 ... In plea ... one the averment was ... ...
-
Fryer v. Campbell
... ... 185; ... Mattauch v. Riddell Automobile Co., 138 Iowa 22, 115 ... N.W. 509; Miles v. Dover etc. Co., 125 N.Y. 294, 26 ... N.E. 261; Comer v. Franklin, 169 Ala. 573, 53 So ... 797; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Burnet, (1909) A. C ... 330, 338-339 ... But it ... may not be ... ...
-
Viking Refrigerators, Inc. v. Farrell
... ... as his own, he cannot afterwards rescind ... Barnett ... v. Stanton, 2 Ala. 181; Hodge v. Tufts, 115 Ala ... 366, 22 So. 422; Comer v. Franklin, 169 Ala. 573, 53 ... So. [180 Miss. 184] 797; Detroit Heating & Lighting Co. v ... Stevens, 16 Utah 177, 52 P. 379 ... If, ... ...
-
Laurel Auto Supply Co. v. Sumrall
... ... who makes a tender of money. The tender must be kept alive ... In this case the tender was not kept alive ... Comer ... v. Franklin, 53 So. 797; Everett v. Pickens, 83 So ... 33; Tarkington v. Purvis, 9 L.R.A. 607; Jagers ... v. Griffin, 43 Miss. 134; Shade v ... ...