Fite v. Pearson
Decision Date | 04 November 1926 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 711 |
Parties | FITE v. PEARSON et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Joe C. Hail, Judge.
Action by Fred Fite against J.H. Pearson and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. Plaintiff takes a nonsuit, and appeals from adverse rulings on pleading. Reversed and remanded.
Stokely Scrivner, Dominick & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Coleman Coleman, Spain & Stewart, of Birmingham, for appellees.
The appeal is predicated upon the record proper, and challenges the sustaining demurrers to the amended counts of the complaint. Nonsuit was entered because of said adverse ruling in sustaining demurrer to count A of the complaint.
The demurrer filed by defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, among other things, was grounded on the fact that the plaintiff was not a party to said general plumber's bond, and that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. And on this theory it is stated in the argument of counsel that demurrers were sustained, and the demurrer raising the question of the lack of privity of the contract will be considered.
The parties sui juris have the right, within the law, to prescribe the limitation of contracts by which they will be bound; and their words, if unambiguous, will be given their ordinary and generally accepted meaning. Such is the rule unless the contrary is made to appear in the contract. Ill. Surety Co. v. Donaldson, 202 Ala. 183, 79 So 667; Lee v. Cochran, 157 Ala. 311, 47 So. 581.
It has been often times declared, in this jurisdiction, that, if one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of third parties, such beneficiary may maintain action upon the promise, though the consideration does not move from the latter. Alabama City Co. v. Kyle, 204 Ala. 597, 87 So. 191; Farrell v. Anderson Co., 211 Ala. 238, 100 So. 205; Alabama Power Co. v. Hamilton, 201 Ala. 62, 77 So. 356; Pugh, Stone & Co. v. Barnes, 108 Ala. 170, 19 So. 370; Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Boykin, 137 Ala. 366, 34 So. 1012; Moore v. First National Bank, 139 Ala. 595, 36 So. 777; Potts v. First National Bank, 102 Ala. 286, 14 So. 663; North Alabama Dev. Co. v. Short, 101 Ala. 333, 13 So. 385; Young v. Hawkins, 74 Ala. 373; Carver v. Eads, 65 Ala. 190; Henry v. Murphy,
54 Ala. 246; Huckabee v. May, 14 Ala. 263. See, also, Moore v. Williamson, 213 Ala. 274, 104 So. 645, 42 A.L.R. 981.
This was the legal effect of the plumbers' bond required by the ordinance of the city--to be a bond obligation on principal and sureties for the use of any person injured on account of a breach of the terms thereof. Deason v. Gray, 192 Ala. 611, 69 So. 15; Deason v. Gray, 189 Ala. 672, 66 So. 646; Coleman v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 329, 21 So. 449, 36 L.R.A. 84, 59 Am.St.Rep. 111; Albright v. Mills, 86 Ala. 324, 5 So. 591; Kelly v. Moore, 51 Ala. 364.
The pertinent provisions of the contract or bond are:
The final paragraph of the ordinance entering into the bond and relations of the three parties thereto is:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster
...indicated in such bond. Section 2612, Code; Bradford v. State, 201 Ala. 170, 77 So. 696; Id., 204 Ala. 46, 85 So. 435; Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521, 111 So. 15. provisions of section 5718 (Gen Acts of 1915, p. 605) and those of section 9513 of the Code are consistent as to amendment of par......
-
American Book Co. v. State
...of the guaranty were for the benefit of the state and its citizens. Ala. Power Co. v. Hamilton, 201 Ala. 62, 77 So. 356; Fite v. Pearson et al. (Ala.Sup.) 111 So. 15. for the moment a construction of the term inserted in the contract, we now refer to the ground of demurrer challenging the s......
-
Ingram v. Evans
... ... the color of his office. Section 1905, Code; Ex parte Martin, ... supra; Deason v. Gray, Sheriff, 189 Ala. 672, 675, ... 66 So. 646; Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521, 522, 111 ... So. 15, and authorities cited; Pickett v. Richardson, supra; ... Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 218 Ala ... ...
-
Burgreen Contracting Co., Inc. v. Goodman
...Ins. Co. of Alabama et al., 237 Ala. 665, 188 So. 896; Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Johnston, 238 Ala. 26, 189 So. 58; Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521, 111 So. 15; Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Sizemore, 258 Ala. 344, 62 So.2d 459; Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Ass'n of Omah......
-
RACE IN CONTRACT LAW.
...(1924), Supreme Court of Alabama, ALDAH)); id. at 558 (illustrating third-party beneficiaries to contracts, by reprinting Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521 (1927), a white case citing Pugh v. Barnes, 108 Ala. 167 (1896) (white parties contract to pay Black person's debt)); id. at 598 (illustrat......