Land Title Guaranty Co. v. Lynchburg Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1918
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 552
• Citation: 80 So. 142,16 Ala.App. 568
• Parties: LAND TITLE GUARANTY CO. v. LYNCHBURG FOUNDRY CO.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

80 So. 142

16 Ala.App. 568

LAND TITLE GUARANTY CO. v. LYNCHBURG FOUNDRY CO.

7 Div. 552

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 19, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Assumpsit by the Land Title Guaranty Company against the Lynchburg Foundry Company. Demurrers to the several counts of the complaint sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Rutherford Lapsley, of Anniston, for appellant.

Knox Acker, Dixon & Sterne, of Anniston, for appellee.

SAMFORD J.

The Chamber of Commerce of Anniston, Ala., and the Lynchburg Foundry Company entered into a contract whereby the foundry company agreed within a certain time, to erect and equip a certain kind of factory at Anniston, Ala., and the Chamber of Commerce on its part agreed to convey to the foundry company certain land and to pay to it $20,000 in money. On July 25 1912, the plaintiff subscribed and paid to the foundry company $250 under the following agreement:

"In consideration of the Lynchburg Foundry Company locating and constructing in the city of Anniston, Ala., a pipe-making plant, in accordance with the contract between the said foundry company and the Anniston Commercial Club the undersigned, each for himself, promise to pay said Lynchburg Foundry Company the amount set opposite his respective name, one-half of said amount to be paid upon the completion of the main building of said pipe-making plant and the balance of said amount to be paid when said plant begins the manufacture of pipe at said plant."

There was a clause in the agreement between the Chamber of Commerce and the foundry company to the effect that--

"It is understood that the said foundry company shall operate said plant at Anniston when it is profitable to do so."

There were demurrers to the complaint raising the questions: First, as to the right of plaintiff to sue for a breach of the contract between the Chamber of Commerce and the foundry company; and, second, as to whether the complaint showed such a breach of contract as entitled plaintiff to sue.

The plaintiff was not a party to or in privity with the contract made between the Chamber of Commerce and the Lynchburg Foundry Company, and hence he could not sue for its breach. Buck v. Carlisle, 98 Ala. 580, 13 So. 585; Morrow v. Wood, 56 Ala. 1; Callison v. Little, 2 Port. 89.

The fifth count of the complaint, which declares on the subscription contract signed by the plaintiff, does...