Hodges v. Sublett

• Decision Date: 30 January 1891
• Citation: 91 Ala. 588,8 So. 800
• Parties: HODGES ET AL. v. SUBLETT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 800

91 Ala. 588

HODGES ET AL. v. SUBLETT.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 30, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Marshall county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.

Action by William Sublett against James W. Hodges and James S. Bain to recover for the building of a Masonic hall.Pending suit the death of defendant Bain was suggested, and the suit was revived against his administrator.The only assignments of error went to the refusal of the court to give several charges requested by the defendant.These charges were as follows: "(1) If the jury find from the evidence that the defendants Hodges and Bain agreed to pay Sublett $133 to make the house nine feet higher, and weatherboard it, and put in the window frames, and that the defendant Hodges afterwards authorized the plaintiff to change the roof from board to shingles, and that Bain had not agreed to this, they cannot find for plaintiff against Bain's administrator.(2) If the jury find from the evidence that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that the agreement was to be reduced to writing, and be signed by the defendants; and further find from the evidence that the contract was in fact reduced to writing, but was not signed,-then the contract was not consummated, and the plaintiff cannot recover in this action, and their verdict must be for the defendants.(3) If Hodges and Bain agreed to pay a certain price for one piece of work, and Hodges agreed to pay a certain price for another piece of work, and Bain agreed to pay a certain price for another piece of work, then the plaintiff, having introduced and relied on all these separate contracts, cannot recover.(4) If Bain and Hodges made one contract to pay for a certain work, and Hodges agreed to pay a certain price for certain other work, there can be no recovery in this cause, because of the want of mutuality in the contract.(5) There is no evidence in this case which would authorize the jury to conclude that there was an acquiescence in the doing of the work under a verbal contract, and, there being no written contract in evidence the verdict should be for the defendants.(6) If the jury find from the evidence that the defendants contemplated having a story added onto the church, and opened negotiations with the plaintiff for the purpose of ascertaining for what they could have the work done, and stated what they desired done or contemplated having done, and plaintiff stated for what he could do the work, and plaintiff said he wanted a contract drawn up and signed, and defendant Hodges agreed for plaintiff to draw up contract and send over, and he would sign it, and such contract was not completed, then defendants are not bound to pay for what work plaintiff did in constructing second story of this building.(7) If the jury believe the evidence, they must find for the defendants.(8) If the jury believe the evidence, they must find for the defendant Hodges.(9) If the jury believe the evidence, they must find for the defendant Bain's administrator.(10) If the jury believe from the evidence that Hodges and Bain went to where plaintiff was at work on the church, and asked him what he would build a second story on the church for, to be used as a Masonic hall, and he agreed that he would do it for $133, and that they agreed that was reasonable enough, and they were willing to pay that, but Hodges said before he would bind himself he would have to go round and see the Masons, and see what they would do, and the parties parted with the agreement that Sublett would write out the contract and send it over to be signed, then if this contract was never signed, and there was no contract made after that, this would not be a contract, notwithstanding the plaintiff may have gone on and done the work.(11) If the parties had a negotiation about building a Masonic hall, and they agreed on the terms, and at the same time agreed that it should be reduced to writing and signed, then this was a part of the contract, and ...