Donald v. Reynolds, 6 Div. 446.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, Justice.
Citation154 So. 530,228 Ala. 513
Decision Date26 April 1934
Docket Number6 Div. 446.

154 So. 530

228 Ala. 513


6 Div. 446.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 26, 1934

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. L. Hogue, Judge.

Bill in equity by John V. Reynolds against C.J. Donald and J. I. Harden, individually and as partners, Harden & Donald, Inc., and Tutwiler Investment Company, to rescind a lease sale contract and recover amount paid thereon. From a decree for complainant, respondent Donald alone appeals.

Affirmed. [154 So. 531]

Ralph W. Quinn and Thos. J. Judge, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

Earl McBee, of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS, Justice.

The complainant purchased the designated lot in Steiner's addition on June 9, 1926; the contract and lease sale being signed by J. I. Harden.

The purchase price, interest, taxes, street improvements, and interest on the several items were for the amount indicated in the decree. The purchase price payments were made largely to Harden, and only the small amount of $190 paid to appellant, Donald, personally, or his agent.

At the time of the sale and this purchase, there was an incumbrance on this and the other lots, which could have been released upon the payment of $750 per lot, but which was not paid as to the instant lot by Harden or by Donald.

When appellee made the last payment on this contract to Donald's Fairfield office, an abstract was sent to him by Donald or his agent on or about March 19, 1931, in compliance with the provisions of the instant sales contract executed by Harden.

In the letter transmitting the abstract was the statement: "As soon as you have had the title passed on please notify us and we will prepare the deed to you." This deed was required to be executed by Harden and Donald, and was written by Donald Real Estate & Insurance Company, Inc., by R. Maxwell, bookkeeper. Dr. Donald's evidence indicated that Harden's office kept the record; that collections of sales made were by Donald Real Estate & Insurance Company to the account of C.J. Donald and J. I. Harden. The letter transmitting the abstract called for passing on the sufficiency of the abstract and a report. There was no error in introducing in evidence these material and pertinent documents. The evidence tended to show that appellant agreed with appellee or his attorney to prepare the deed and execute same and to procure a release from the Tutwiler Investment Company of the superior lien of its mortgage. There were other tendencies of evidence of ratification and of agency as affecting the Harden sales contract to appellee and payments thereon, and liability for a due and proper execution thereof and the investment of appellee with a good and merchantable title. Dr. Donald testified that the lot in question had not been released from the Tutwiler mortgage at the time of this trial.

The execution of the contract to sell the land free of incumbrance by Harden, the failure to disclose the incumbrance by the respondents, and the receipt of the purchase money by Harden and by Donald, without disclosing the existence of a superior and prior incumbrance thereon, given by the vendors, constituted actionable deceit which justified the recovery of the purchase price and interest. Corry v. Sylvia Y Cia, 192 Ala. 550, 68 So. 891, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 1052. Under the facts of the case, rescission and the establishment in equity of a lien upon the interest of the vendors' property here involved and sold to complainant, and which was subject to the Tutwiler mortgage when the sale was made and when the trial was had, were the rights of complainant. West v. Holman, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Bankers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss, 6 Div. 511.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1934
    ...580, 39 So. 243, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 585; Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Davis (Ala. Sup.) 152 So. 226; Donald v. Reynolds (Ala. Sup.) 154 So. 530; City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Company, 172 U.S. 1, 19 S.Ct. 77, 43 L.Ed. 341. The violations as to enjoyment of good will are re......
  • Coral Gables, Inc. v. Patterson, 3 Div. 142
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 23, 1936
    ...against privies in the contract. Goodlett v. 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, held the necessary pleading for a bill for specific performance must show a va......
  • Catanzano v. Hydinger, 6 Div. 920
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 15, 1936
    ...all liens. Section 8935, Code; Aday v. Echols, 18 Ala. 353, 52 Am.Dec. 225; McWilliams v. Jenkins, 72 Ala. 480; Donald v. Reynolds, 228 Ala. 513, 154 So. 530. The prayer of the bill in this case is for rescission and the enforcement of a lien to secure a refund of the purchase money paid, o......
  • Spencer v. State, 5 Div. 166.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 26, 1934
    ...And it appearing to the court that the day fixed by the trial court for the execution of the death sentence pronounced upon the defendant [154 So. 530.] has passed, it is ordered by this court that Friday, the 22d day of June, 1934, be, and it is, hereby fixed and set for the execution of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT