Hastings v. Alabama State Land Co.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1899
• Citation: 124 Ala. 608,26 So. 881
• Parties: HASTINGS ET AL. v. ALABAMA STATE LAND CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 881

124 Ala. 608

HASTINGS ET AL. v. ALABAMA STATE LAND CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 23, 1899

Appeal from chancery court, Bibb county; W. H. Tayloe, Chancellor.

Action by the Alabama State Land Company against J. M. Hastings and others. From a decree amending a former decree nunc pro tunc defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The original bill was filed by the appellate to enforce a vendor's lien on certain lands sold by appellee to appellants, Hastings and Gillespie, and averred that the purchasers were to execute their notes for the deferred payments, which they refused to do. The time at which the deferred payments were to be made is mentioned in the original bill, but the fact that the notes which were to be given for the deferred payments were to bear interest from the date of sale, instead of from the maturity of the notes was not specifically mentioned in the original bill. The final decree of September 10, 1897, was drawn so as to include the interest on the amount due only from the maturity of the notes which the purchasers were to give for the deferred payments. This decree was amended nunc pro tunc so as to include all interests according to the terms of the contract between the parties, as shown by the pleadings and the other record evidence. It is from this decree amending the former decree nunc pro tunc that the former appeal is prosecuted, and the rendition of the decree allowing such amendment is assigned as error.

Z. T Rudulph, for appellants.

Smith &amp Smith, for appellee.

TYSON J.

By the terms of the written contract of purchase the respondents were to pay interest at the rate of 8 per centum per annum upon the deferred payments from date of sale. In ascertaining the amount due by them upon these deferred payments, the chancellor, in making the calculation of interest, calculated the interest from the date of maturity of these deferred payments, instead of from date of sale. The contract evidencing the amounts due and owing to the complainant was in writing, and made an exhibit to the deposition of witness Anderson. There was, and could have been, no controversy as to these amounts, and as to the time from which interest began to run. These facts were not only shown by the contract itself, but by the answer of the respondents to the bill. After the rendition of this decree by the chancellor, the complainant, discovering the mistake, made a motion at the next term of the court...