Eastis v. Beasley
Decision Date | 27 May 1926 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 590 |
Parties | EASTIS et al. v. BEASLEY et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; W.M. Walker, Judge.
Bill in equity by W.L. Beasley and others against D.T. Eastis and others. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill respondents appeal. Affirmed.
Ritter Wynn & Carmichael, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Smyer & Smyer, of Birmingham, for appellees.
Appellees filed this bill against appellants, seeking specific performance of a certain "option contract" for the sale of lands in Jefferson county, Ala., and, from a decree overruling the demurrer to the bill, respondents have prosecuted this appeal. The contract which forms the basis of this suit appears in the report of the case. It was executed June 8, 1923, by one Isham Eastis, and granted to these complainants in consideration of the payment of $500 "the option or right until the 1st day of August, 1923," to purchase the real estate therein specifically described, upon definite terms stipulated. The contract here in question, signed by Isham Eastis only, is unilateral in form, but the election of the other parties thereto (these complainants) within the period therein provided, to treat it as binding, and to enforce it, meets all the requirements of the rule as to mutuality, entitling them to the equitable remedy of specific performance. Ross v. Parks, 93 Ala. 153, 8 So. 368, 11 L.R.A. 148, 30 Am.St.Rep. 47; Blackburn v. McLaughlin, 202 Ala. 434, 80 So. 818; Bethea v. McCullough, 195 Ala. 480, 70 So. 680; 36 Cyc.
As previously noted, the time limit of complainants' option was August 1, 1923. It appears from the bill that, before the expiration of that time, said Eastis died, leaving a will which had not yet been admitted to probate. This bill was filed, also, before the expiration of the period allowed by the contract for the exercise of the option, and all the heirs at law, as well as devisees under the will and those named as executors thereunder, were made parties respondent, and, it appearing that a special administrator had been appointed of the estate since the filing of the bill, such administrator was made a party by amendment to the bill. Thus are all parties owning or asserting any claim or title to the property made parties to the bill.
It is urged that complainants did not sufficiently manifest acceptance of the contract either to Eastis during his life or to his successors in interest after his death, so as to constitute the contract mutually binding. Aside from the reasons therefor stated in the bill as an excuse for lack of notice of acceptance, the rulings of this court have established the rule that the filing of the bill within the period of time specified, and offering to do and perform all matters condition precedent to the full consummation of the contract, suffices as a sufficient acceptance and meets all the requirements of the rule. Richards v. Green, 23 N.J.Eq. 536, quoted approvingly in Blackburn v. McLaughlin, 202 Ala. 434, 80 So. 818.
It follows, of course, that, Eastis having died before the expiration of the period fixed by the contract for the exercise of the option, notice of acceptance to him was not necessary.
It is further argued that the contract being a mere option, and binding only upon Eastis, was uneforceable after his death; the same not having been accepted during his lifetime. We are of the opinion the following from Ross v. Parks, 93 Ala. 153, 8 So. 368, 11 L.R.A. 148, 30 Am.St.Rep. 47, suffices as an answer to this insistence:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lassetter
... ... it is not free from criticism. The cases of Camper v ... Rice, 201 Ala. 579, 78 So. 923, Warren v. Crow, ... 195 Ala. 568, 71 So. 92, and Eastis v. Beasley, 214 ... Ala. 651, 108 So. 763, sustain this conclusion ... At the ... conclusion of the bill the pleader has added a ... ...
-
Moss v. Cogle
...195 Ala. 601, 71 So. 177; Blackburn v. McLaughlin, 202 Ala. 434, 80 So. 818; Melton v. Stuart, 213 Ala. 574, 105 So. 659; Eastis v. Beasley, 214 Ala. 651, 108 So. 763; Fuller v. Totten, 222 Ala. 174, 131 So. 435; Asbury v. Cochran, 243 Ala. 281, 9 So.2d 887; Tillman v. Calhoun Lumber Co., 2......
-
Gilmore v. Sexton
...accompanied by fraud on the part of the son. The demurrers also raise the point of limitations and laches. In Eastis v. Beasley, 214 Ala. 651, 108 So. 763, 765, it was held that the averment that, 'The ground for reformation is mutuality of mistake by the parties to the deed, in that, 'thro......
-
Clipper v. Gordon
...a whole and its wording given a reasonable and not unnatural construction. Warren v. Crow, 195 Ala. 568, 71 So. 92; Eastis et al. v. Beasley et al., 214 Ala. 651, 108 So. 763; Camper v. Rice, 201 Ala. 579, 78 So. 923; Snider v. J. E. Freeman & Co., 214 Ala. 295, 107 So. 815; Christopher v. ......