Hancock-Hazlett General Const. Co., Inc. v. Trane Co., HANCOCK-HAZLETT
Decision Date | 21 November 1986 |
Docket Number | HANCOCK-HAZLETT |
Citation | 499 So.2d 1385 |
Parties | GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. TRANE COMPANY, et al. 85-749. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard A. Wright of Stout & Roebuck, Mobile, for appellant.
M. Mallory Mantiply of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston, Mobile, for appellee Trane Co.
Joseph C. Sullivan, Jr., and David A. Boyett III of Hamilton, Butler, Riddick, Tarlton & Sullivan, Mobile, for appellee Robert R. Williams.
Plaintiff, Hancock-Hazlett General Construction Company, Inc. ("Hancock"), appeals from the dismissal of its complaint against defendants, Trane Company and Robert R. Williams, the district manager of Trane's sales office in Mobile, Alabama. We affirm.
Hancock was the general contractor on a condominium construction project. McCullough Mechanical Contractors was a subcontractor on this project for air conditioning work. Trane, under an agreement with McCullough, supplied McCullough with air conditioning equipment.
McCullough's subcontract with Hancock was in the amount of $437,669. McCullough presented invoices to Hancock in the amount of $95,000 for air conditioning equipment supplied to it by Trane, whereupon Hancock issued its bank check in that amount, made payable to both McCullough and Trane. McCullough indorsed this check and mailed it, together with copies of the invoices, to Trane. Trane indorsed the check and deposited it in Trane's bank account. At that time, McCullough owed Trane only $49,515.61, not $95,000. When this overpayment was discovered by Trane, it reimbursed McCullough by issuing a check in the amount of $45,484.39, the difference between Trane's invoices and $95,000.
Subsequently, McCullough defaulted on the construction job. The ensuing audits revealed discrepancies in the nature of overpayments. Specifically, it was discovered by Hancock that the $95,000 payment to McCullough and Trane was in fact an overpayment and that Trane had sent McCullough its check in the amount of the overpayment, viz., $45,484.39.
Hancock ultimately filed this action against Trane, Williams, and other fictitiously named defendants, alleging:
The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.
It is axiomatic that a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala.R.Civ.P., motion is to be granted only when it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling plaintiff to relief. See Dempsey v. Denman, 442 So.2d 63, 65 (Ala.1983), where it was stated:
"Implicit in Conley [v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957),] and our cases is the requirement that the relief to which plaintiff may be entitled under a provable set of facts must be relief according to a cognizable theory of law...."
Under this test, the question is whether plaintiff's complaint was so deficient as to be vulnerable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Count I is in the nature of a common count for money had and received or money due and owing from payment by mistake, i.e., unjust enrichment.
The essence of the theories of unjust enrichment or money had and received is that a plaintiff can prove facts showing that defendant holds money which, in equity and good conscience, belongs to plaintiff or holds money which was improperly paid to defendant because of mistake or fraud. Foshee v. General Telephone Co. of the Southeast, 295 Ala. 70, 322 So.2d 715 (1975); Wash v. Hunt, 281 Ala. 368, 202 So.2d 730 (1967).
Here, plaintiff's complaint affirmatively discloses that defendants do not hold any amount of money paid to them by mistake or otherwise. Quite the contrary, Trane retained...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simple Helix, LLC v. Relus Techs., LLC
...of another", Simple Helix's claim falters. TILLEY'S ALABAMA EQUITY § 19:1 (2020) (emphases added); see Hancock-Hazlett Gen. Constr. Co. v. Trane Co. , 499 So. 2d 1385, 1387 (Ala. 1986) ; ("Here, plaintiff's complaint affirmatively discloses that defendants do not hold any amount of money pa......
-
Allen v. Scott (In re Scott)
...because of mistake or fraud.” ’ Dickinson v. Cosmos Broad. Co., 782 So.2d 260, 266 (Ala.2000) (quoting Hancock–Hazlett Gen. Constr. Co. v. Trane Co., 499 So.2d 1385, 1387 (Ala.1986)).... ‘The doctrine of unjust enrichment is an old equitable remedy permitting the court in equity and good co......
-
Allen v. Scott (In re Scott)
...because of mistake or fraud." ' Dickinson v. Cosmos Broad. Co., 782 So.2d 260, 266 (Ala.2000) (quoting Hancock-Hazlett Gen. Constr. Co. v. Trane Co., 499 So.2d 1385, 1387 (Ala.1986)).... 'The doctrine of unjust enrichment is an old equitable remedy permitting the court in equity and good co......
-
Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc.
...fifteen dollars for her ten dollar purchase of the Hair Treatment. (R. 25, Def.'s Mem. at 14) (citing Hancock–Hazlett Gen. Const. Co. v. Trane Co., 499 So.2d 1385, 1387 (Ala.1986)). In response, Lake asserts that Unilever was unjustly enriched beyond the purchase price paid by Lake and that......