Hamilton v. Stone
| Decision Date | 06 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 997 |
| Parties | HAMILTON v. STONE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O.A. Steele, Judge.
Suit by Will Stone against N.O. Hamilton. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellant.
M.M Smith, of Pell City, for appellee.
The suit is to enforce specific performance of a contract of sale of 40 acres of land. The bill was filed by appellee against appellant. The hearing was on bill, answer, and proof; and the relief prayed was granted, and respondent appeals.
It is first insisted that the contract of sale was void for indefiniteness and uncertainty, which was as follows:
It is claimed that there is not sufficient or certain description of any particular 40 acres of land. Appellant can take nothing by this insistence; the contract is not void for uncertainty, it is capable of and was made perfectly certain by parol proof, and without in the least violating the statutes of frauds, or any rules of evidence as to parol proof to explain or contradict written. None of the parol proof in the least contradicted the writing, but made it perfectly clear, definite, and certain as to the lands to be conveyed and every other one of the terms of the contract of sale.
The case is within the exception of the statute of frauds as to the sale of lands, and not of the rule. The vendee or purchaser was put into possession of the particular tract of land or 40 acres, and a part of the purchase price paid. There is possibly some dispute as to whether any part of the purchase price was paid, but none that the description was made certain by putting the purchaser in possession. The trial court and the register found that a part of the purchase money was paid, and we are not inclined to disturb this finding.
In this state it has been settled by decisions so numerous as to establish a rule of property that mere indefiniteness in description, though it be such as to render a deed prima facie inoperative, does not necessarily have that effect that evidence of extrinsic facts relative to the situation of the parties and the circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sadler v. Radcliff
...s.c., 141 Ala. 593, 37 So. 590; Head v. Sanders, 189 Ala. 443, 445, 66 So. 621; Homan v. Stewart, 103 Ala. 644, 16 So. 35; Hamilton v. Stone, 202 Ala. 468, 80 So. 852; Parker v. Jefferson Co., 209 Ala. 138, 95 So. Ezzell v. Holland Stave Co., 210 Ala. 694, 99 So. 78), or may be rendered cer......
-
Karter v. East
...subject of ambiguous writings, we are not so well satisfied that it is unwise as to be disposed to depart from it." In Hamilton v. Stone, 202 Ala. 469, 80 So. 852, 853, the description was: "Forty acres of land joining John Edge forty." Held subject to parol evidence identifying the 40 cove......
-
Devlin v. Ingrum
...doubtful terms against the party who framed them, and who is offering or undertaking to do the things in question. Hamilton v. Stone, 202 Ala. 468, 469, 80 So. 852, 853 (1919); see Rivers, 442 So.2d at 76 ("[I]t is axiomatic that ambiguities should be interpreted most strongly against the p......
-
Olen Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. L. A. Zieman & Co.
...Sanders, 189 Ala. 443, 66 So. 621), and the maxim of 'Id certum est quod certum reddi' was applied. Such was the effect of Hamilton v. Stone, 202 Ala. 468, 80 So. 852. And Howison v. Bartlett, 141 Ala. 593, 37 So. 590, and Angel v. Simpson, 85 Ala. 53, 3 So. 758, refute the contention that ......