Griel v. Lomax

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtSOMERVILLE, J.
Citation5 So. 325,86 Ala. 132
Decision Date14 January 1889
PartiesGRIEL v. LOMAX ET AL.

5 So. 325

86 Ala. 132

GRIEL
v.
LOMAX ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 14, 1889


Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.

This action was brought to recover $100 paid by plaintiffs to defendant, Jacob Griel, upon a contract of purchase. The suit grew out of a transaction betwen defendant and plaintiffs concerning the sale by the former to the latter of his undivided interest in a certain lot situated in the city of Sheffield, Ala. Griel claimed an interest in said lot under a contract of sale, entered into by A. H. Moses on the one part, and Griel, C. L. Matthews, and J. C. O'Connell on the other. By this agreement, Griel, Matthews, and O'Connell were to make a cash payment of part of the purchase money, and execute their joint notes to Moses for the deferred payments. The cash payment was to be made, and the joint note executed, on the delivery of the deed to Griel, Matthews, and O'Connell. After this contract of sale Griel sold to plaintiffs his interest in the lot by a contract in writing, telling them that it was an undivided one-third interest, and that they "would have to pay in cash and by their notes one-third of the purchase money." By the written contract Griel sold to plaintiffs "all his right, title, and interest" in the lot, without any covenants of warranty or seisin. Matthews and O'Connell, as witnesses for plaintiffs, testified that they refused to have anything to do with the purchase of the lot in about a month after the contract of the sale was entered into between them, Griel, and Moses; and upon their being asked what they said, upon being informed by defendant Griel that he had sold his interest in the purchase to plaintiffs, they both answered that they then told Griel that they "would have nothing more to do with them," (the lots;) saying at the same time that they did not wish to sign the notes for the purchase of the lots with plaintiffs. Defendant objected to these questions, and, his objection being overruled, and the witnesses allowed to answer, moved the court to exclude the answers from the jury. This the court refused. Plaintiffs then offered to prove by their own testimony that before the execution and delivery of the contract of sale between plaintiffs and defendant, and also after the delivery of said contract, and the payment of the sum agreed on, defendant said to them that "he would guaranty that it would be all right, and if not he would refund the money;" which testimony the court admitted. The court charged the jury that, if they believed all the evidence, they must find for the plaintiffs. There was verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. [5 So. 326]

Arrington & Graham, for appellant.

Geo. M. Marks, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The right acquired by a vendee of land, under a valid executory contract of purchase, is a valuable legal right, capable of being sold and assigned to a subvendee, and such assignment will constitute a sufficient consideration to support a promise on the part of the purchaser to pay money. It is nothing more than the familiar case of an assignment of a contract to purchase land. 2 Add. Cont. (Morg. Amer. Ed.) § 532; Meyer v. Mitchell, 75 Ala. 475; 1 Amer. & Eng. Cyclop. Law, 826, 827, 842, 843.

The interest acquired in the land by Griel, under the contract of purchase from Moses, was prima facie a valuable consideration, sufficient to support the promise of the appellees to pay therefor a pecuniary consideration in return. If there was no fraud in the sale, either by intentional misrepresentation or concealment of some material fact by the vendor or assignor, Griel, the purchasers, had they been sued for the purchase money, could not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Kennedy v. Hudson, 3 Div. 960.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 18, 1931
    ...468, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 924, and the authorities cited in the principal case, and the note reviewing the authorities." In Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 135, 5 So. 325, 326, the action was for money paid on the purchase of an interest in land. The court said: "The contract purports on its face ......
  • Berkowitz v. Farrell, 6 Div. 145.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1923
    ...85 So. 392; Carland & Co. v. Burke, 197 Ala. 435, 73 So. 10; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Hingson, 186 Ala. 40, 65 So. 45; Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 5 So. 325; Alabama Power Co. v. Fergusen, 205 Ala. 204, 87 So. 796. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the defendant entered ......
  • Home Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 33005
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 7, 1938
    ...assignor's right, title and interest in the obligation assigned. 5 C. J. 969, par. 158; Houston v. Burney, 10 Miss. 583; Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 5 So. 325; Carrier v. Eastis, 20 So. 595; Epler v. Funk, 8 Pa. 468. Unless it is manifest that the words "without recourse" were intended to ......
  • Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Ashley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 11, 1909
    ...complaint, and not upon demurrers covering separable parts of the complaint. Such was the conclusion of this court in Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 5 So. 325, upon substantially the same inquiry we now have. In that case the complaint contained two of the common counts and one special count,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Kennedy v. Hudson, 3 Div. 960.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 18, 1931
    ...468, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 924, and the authorities cited in the principal case, and the note reviewing the authorities." In Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 135, 5 So. 325, 326, the action was for money paid on the purchase of an interest in land. The court said: "The contract purports on its face ......
  • Berkowitz v. Farrell, 6 Div. 145.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1923
    ...85 So. 392; Carland & Co. v. Burke, 197 Ala. 435, 73 So. 10; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Hingson, 186 Ala. 40, 65 So. 45; Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 5 So. 325; Alabama Power Co. v. Fergusen, 205 Ala. 204, 87 So. 796. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the defendant entered ......
  • Home Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 33005
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 7, 1938
    ...assignor's right, title and interest in the obligation assigned. 5 C. J. 969, par. 158; Houston v. Burney, 10 Miss. 583; Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 5 So. 325; Carrier v. Eastis, 20 So. 595; Epler v. Funk, 8 Pa. 468. Unless it is manifest that the words "without recourse" were intended to ......
  • Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Ashley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 11, 1909
    ...complaint, and not upon demurrers covering separable parts of the complaint. Such was the conclusion of this court in Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 132, 5 So. 325, upon substantially the same inquiry we now have. In that case the complaint contained two of the common counts and one special count,......
  • 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