Crichton v. Hayles

• Citation: 176 Ala. 223,57 So. 696
• Parties: CRICHTON v. HAYLES.
• Decision Date: 01 February 1912
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

57 So. 696

176 Ala. 223

CRICHTON v. HAYLES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 1, 1912

Appeal from Chancery Court, Mobile County; Thomas H. Smith Chancellor.

Suit by John F. Hayles against Hermenia Crichton, administratrix, for an accounting. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Henry Chamberlain, for appellant.

D. B Cobbs and Gregory L. & H. T. Smith, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The bill is filed against appellant, as administratrix of the estate of her intestate, and seeks for an accounting, based upon certain business transactions between complainant and the said intestate, and also for discovery in aid thereof.

The facts and conditions shown by the bill are substantially as follows: Prior to May 27, 1907, the intestate owned two tracts of land known as the Millville and Toulminville tracts, which he laid off into lots and placed on the market for sale, and complainant had sold a large number of them for him from the Millville tract only. On the date mentioned, a written agreement was made between them, to wit:

"Mobile, Alabama, May 27, 1907.

"This memo of agreement between J. F. Hayles and myself. I agree to pay him 25 per cent. net on sales of lots in South Millville and Toulminville Heights after I receive the amount of the purchase price of property together with the expenses made necessary in preparing the same for market. Legal expenses etc., as shown by ledger in which said accounts are kept. Said lots are to be sold at prices agreed to by me. This agreement to last two years from date. [ Signed] H. R. Crichton. J. F. Hayles."

Under this agreement, complainant sold a large number of lots from the Toulminville tract. Subsequently the intestate purchased a third tract of land, known as the First Addition, which he has also laid off into lots and placed on the market; and complainant sold for him from this tract a large number of lots. The reasonable value of his services in selling all the lots, not provided for by the written contract, was 25 per cent. of the selling price of the lots.

A few of the lots in each of the tracts named were sold for cash; but most of them were sold partly for cash and partly on deferred payments. Cash payments were turned over to the intestate, but in several instances complainant retained installment payments with the knowledge of the intestate, who also, from time to time, made payments to complainant on account of his commissions; all of these being charged to his general account, without reference to any particular sales. On the deferred payments referred to, various purchasers made payments from time to time, some to the intestate, and some later to the respondent; while, for defaults in some of them, the sales were canceled, and the lots resold by complainant to other parties.

The intestate expended considerable sums, besides the purchase money, in subdividing the tracts and preparing the lots for market, of which he kept an account.

Complainant does not know the amounts or dates of the various deferred payments; nor the amount of said expenses, of which he himself kept no account, and depends upon getting them from respondent. It is charged, however, that upon an adjustment of the several accounts a balance will remain due to him.

The bill alleges that intestate died in February, 1909, and that respondent "was thereafter appointed as the administratrix of his estate."

Paragraph 6 of the bill summarizes the conditions recited, as a predicate for discovery, as follows: "(6) By reason of the fact that there were a large number of small cash payments made upon the purchase price of the lots sold, and many similar payments made upon the notes given for deferred payments of the purchase money for lots sold on credit, and the further facts that a large number of these payments were not made promptly at the time that they became due, but at irregular periods, and the fact that the sales of some of the lots were rescinded, and such lots resold, and the fact that there is confusion and error in the account kept by H. R Crichton and defendant of the expenses paid out by said H. R....