Howard v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 February 1891
• Citation: 91 Ala. 268,8 So. 868
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: HOWARD v. EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G. RY. CO.

8 So. 868

91 Ala. 268

HOWARD v. EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 12, 1891

Appeal from city court of Selma; JOHN HARALSON, Judge.

Gaston A. Robbins, for appellant.

Pettus & Pettus, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

The suit is for damages growing out of an alleged breach of contract. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the second and third counts of the complaint, and the judgment of the court sustaining the demurrer is assigned as error. The contract, as stated in the second count of the complaint, was made on the 11th of March, 1889, and by its terms the defendant contracted with and appointed the plaintiff as its land agent, agreeing to provide him with annual passes, and to pay him a salary of $25 per month, in consideration of which plaintiff was to travel and work for the purpose of inducing capitalists to make investments in real estate along defendant's railroad line, and to induce excursionist to travel over said road. The breaches assigned are- First, defendant declined to go on with its contract; Second, by declaring its intention not to abide by the contract; third, by refusing to permit plaintiff to continue his services without fault on his part. The material inquiry is whether the contract as stated is not void for uncertainty, or one which either party could terminate at will. No damages are claimed for services past rendered, but for a refusal to continue plaintiff in his employment, and there is no averment as to the time when plaintiff was dismissed. The law does not favor, but leans against, the destruction of contracts because of uncertainty but when contracts are so vague and indefinite in terms that the intention of the parties cannot be fairly and reasonably collected from them, the courts will not undertake to give them effect. Robinson v. Bullock, 58 Ala. 621; Lord v. Goldberg, 81 Cal. 596, 22 P. 1126. When a contract does not specify a particular time within which it is to be performed, the presumption is the parties intended performance within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time depends upon the nature of the duty to be performed, the relation of the parties, and the circumstances of the case. Cotton v. Cotton, 75 Ala. 347. A contract imports a mutual agreement. To be binding on one it must be binding on the other. Each party assumes fixed and defined obligations. Comer v. Bankhead, 70 Ala. 144; Eskridge v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. 264. There is a certain well-known class of unilateral contracts excepted from this general rule, but the exception has no application in this case. The rule of law that contracts are to be performed within a reasonable time, when no particular time is fixed, applies to contracts in which the duties to be performed are such as may be completed within a reasonable time,-duties which, ex vi termini, the contract imports that the parties contemplated are to be done within a reasonable time; but...