Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson
Decision Date | 16 December 1920 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 157 |
Citation | 87 So. 186,205 Ala. 347 |
Parties | GRAND BAY LAND CO. v. SIMPSON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1921
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney, Judge.
Bill by J.M. Simpson against the Grand Bay Land Company. Judgment for complainant, and respondent appeals. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.
Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant.
Smiths Young & Leigh, of Mobile, for appellee.
The bill was for discovery and accounting for commissions alleged to be due appellee under a contract of employment by appellant, and for such other and further relief in the premises as complainant may be entitled to.
The contract of employment averred in the bill is of date September 12, 1913, and stipulated:
It is further averred that an accounting is necessary to ascertain what payments have been made from time to time upon the purchase price of said sales made by the complainant. Julian v. Woolbert, 202 Ala. 530, 532, 81 So. 32.
The answer avers that the amounts of the commissions to which the complainant has become entitled and the amounts received by him are both incorrectly stated in the original bill of complaint, as was sought to be made to appear from the facts set forth.
While the answer of the Grand Bay Land Company contains no specific reference to the sale of "listed lands" by complainant or his subagent, or of credits sought for commissions received thereon by complainant or his subagent, the relationship of the parties as principal and agent and the existence of mutual accounts are fully averred. The terms of Clark's employment by Simpson stipulated for commissions on "all sales of the company's lands" and "for 50 per cent. commission on all sales of listed property." There was evidence to the effect that sales of "listed lands" with the company were made by complainant or his subagent, and that commissions were obtained by Simpson or Clark therefrom. It cannot be successfully insisted that the terms of Simpson's contract as sales manager were broad enough to permit him or Clark, as his subagent, to compete with his principal in the sale of that company's listed lands. On all such sales he and his subagent must be treated (in a court of equity) as acting for the Grand Bay Land Company, and that commissions earned or received on sales of listed lands be treated as the property of the company, and should have been credited by complainant (respondent's only bookkeeper) on the books of the company as an asset. Halstead v. Rabb, 8 Port. 63; Hall v. McKeller, 155 Ala. 508, 46 So. 460; County of Dallas v. Timberlake, 54 Ala. 403; Phillipps v. Birmingham Industrial Co., 161 Ala. 509, 50 So. 77, 135 Am.St.Rep. 156.
The mere filing of a bill for accounting implies that there were items on both sides, that the balance is uncertain, and that the true amount and to whom due must be ascertained by the court. It further implies an offer on complainant's part to pay any balance that might be found owing to the defendant without a specific averment of an offer to that effect. This is necessary to enable the court to do complete justice between the parties. Both parties are regarded as actors by the act of filing the bill, the register must state the full account between them, and the court must pass upon it, declaring their respective rights by a final decree; that is to say, of the instant bill, the complainant seeks an accounting against the defendant, but does not offer to pay any balance that may develop in favor of the latter when a full accounting is had; nor does the respondent present a cross-bill praying to be allowed such a balance. He does not even ask credit for any allowance in his favor other than that set up in his answer in deduction of the complainant's claim. He does however, pray that "this cross-complainant may have such other and further relief as it may be entitled to receive the premises considered, as in duty bound it will ever pray."
The question is: First, may the respondent be allowed his credits without a cross-bill? And, if we decide in the affirmative, may a balance in his favor be decreed without a cross-bill, if his credits exceed the claims of the plaintiff? In Alston v. Alston, 34 Ala. 15, it was held that a cross-bill is not necessary for a guardian to obtain credits on an accounting in so far as they operate as discharges in his favor, and the principle was already recognized in Goodwin v. McGehee, 15 Ala. 232, 248, and Nelson v. Dunn, 15 Ala. 501, 515. See Taunton v. McInnish, 46 Ala. 619; Cotton v. Scott. 97 Ala. 447, 449, 12 So. 65. So there can be no question that the defendant may be allowed his credits up to the amount of the plaintiff's claim.
But how about any balance in his favor? By the later English practice, which is supposed to govern us in the absence of law or statute in Alabama to the contrary, a bill for accounting was treated differently from ordinary bills for relief, and if the defendant was found on the accounting to be the one entitled to the balance, it was customary to decree it in his favor on his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
... ... of said coal; provided the use of said land for agricultural ... purposes shall not be unnecessarily disturbed. And also the ... right to ... expression in Julian v. Woolbert, 202 Ala. 530, 532, ... 81 So. 32; Grand Bay L. Co. v. Simpson, 205 Ala ... 347, 87 So. 186 ... The ... filing of such a bill ... ...
-
Crowson v. Cody
... ... Cody, 209 Ala. 674, 677, 96 So. 875; same case, 207 Ala ... 476, 93 So. 420; Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 205 ... Ala. 347, 87 So. 186; same case, 207 Ala. 303, 92 So. 789; ... ...
-
Dewberry v. Bank of Standing Rock
... ... procuring the signature, and the wife's land was made to ... secure the husband's debt; the latter embraced the ... property of the wife and ... Julian v ... Woolbert, 202 Ala. 530, 532, 81 So. 32; Grand Bay ... Land Co. v. Simpson, 205 Ala. 347, 87 So. 186; ... Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co., ... ...
-
Stover v. Hill
... ... In a ... bill to reform a deed so as to exclude from the description ... land previously conveyed to complainant, which was correctly ... described in the bill, allegations ... way of an original bill or by a cross-bill in a proper case ... Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 205 Ala. 347, 87 So ... 186; Hamilton v. Terry Fur. & Loan Co., 206 Ala ... ...