Ex parte Perusini Const. Co.
Decision Date | 16 April 1942 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 669. |
Citation | 242 Ala. 632,7 So.2d 576 |
Parties | Ex parte PERUSINI CONST. CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Boutwell & Pointer, of Birmingham, and Karl C Harrison, of Columbiana, for petitioner.
L.H. Ellis, of Columbiana, and Borden Burr, of Birmingham, for respondent.
The petition seeks a writ of mandamus directed to Hon. W.W Wallace as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, commanding him to vacate and set aside an order and judgment overruling petitioner's motion to transfer from the law to the equity docket of that court that certain cause pending on the law docket, in which petitioner is defendant and the County Board of Education of Shelby County, Alabama, is plaintiff, and to forthwith transfer the cause in accordance with the prayer of the motion.
The suit at law seeks to recover damages for the defendant's (petitioner here) failure or refusal to fulfill its bid to construct and alter certain school buildings in Shelby County, Alabama.
In substance the complaint alleges that in answer to an advertisement for bids the defendant submitted its bid to perform certain work to the Shelby County Board of Education that defendant's bid was the lowest submitted and the contract was awarded to petitioner on December 7, 1938; that a contract prepared in accordance with the bid and its acceptance, was submitted to petitioner for execution on December 12, 1938, but that on December 16, 1938, petitioner refused to execute the contract and to fulfill its bid; that thereafter, a contract was awarded to another for the sum of $8,800 in excess of the bid of petitioner.
Petitioner's motion to transfer the cause from the law to the equity docket rests upon the following facts, which we quote:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coleman Engineering Co. v. North Am. Aviation, Inc.
...of gravity at rail height. (17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 146, pp. 493--494; 3 Corbin, Contracts (1960 ed.) § 609; Ex parte Perusini Const. Co., 242 Ala. 632, 636, 7 So.2d 576. Cf. Lemoge Electric v. County of San Mateo, 46 Cal.2d 659, 662--663, 297 P.2d 638; Brunzell Const. Co. v. G. J. Weisb......
-
Board of Water and Sewer Com'rs of City of Mobile v. Spriggs
...there can be no contract. 6 R.C.L. page 623, section 42; 12 Amer.Jur. 624, section 133, and cases there cited.' Ex parte Perusini Const. Co., 242 Ala. 632, 636, 7 So.2d 576, 578. The validity of the equitable principle which permits a contracting party to obtain cancellation for his own uni......
-
Paul Hardeman, Inc. v. Arkansas Power & Light Company
...also accepts the risk of an unenforceable contract. In this connection, they quote the following language from Ex parte Perusini Const. Co., 242 Ala. 632, 7 So. 2d 576 (1942), as "If one of the parties, through mistake, names a consideration that is out of all proportion to the value of the......
-
First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Perfection Bedding Co.
...without any showing of mistake or wrongdoing by National. See Johnson v. Boggan, 325 So.2d 178 (Ala.1975); Ex parte Perusini Construction Co., 242 Ala. 632, 7 So.2d 576 (1942). Consequently, the district court was correct in finding that the former stockholders were not entitled to the exce......