Lee v. Cochran

Decision Date19 November 1908
Citation47 So. 581,157 Ala. 311
PartiesLEE ET AL. v. COCHRAN.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Chancery Court, Barbour County; Lucian D. Gardner Chancellor.

Bill by L. L. Cochran against A. T. Lee and another. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Peach &amp Thomas, for appellants.

A. H Merrill & Son, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Bill by appellee to compel specific performance of a contract by appellants to convey real estate. A. T. and R. M. Lee leased for a term of five years, 1905 to 1909, inclusive, at a stipulated annual rental, as evidenced by five promissory notes, payable on October 1st of each year, their lands to L. L. Cochran. Embraced in the writing is this provision: " * * * And I, A. T. Lee, joined by my husband, R. M. Lee, hereby agree and bind ourselves unto the said L. L. Cochran, if he shall see fit any time during his term of lease to pay us twelve hundred and eighty dollars for the within-described lands, we and each of us do hereby bind ourselves to make the said L. L. Cochran a good, lawful deed to the said lands herein described, and I, Annie T. Lee, joined by my husband, R. M. Lee, do agree that on the receipt of said twelve hundred and eighty dollars from the said L. L. Cochran that we bind ourselves to turn over this lease and all unpaid rent notes herein mentioned, without further payment or consideration." The annual rental for the years 1905 and 1906 was promptly paid by Cochran; and on August 30, 1907, Cochran decided to avail himself of the option to purchase, so advised the appellants, and tendered the $1,280 stipulated in the premises. Appellants refused to make the conveyance provided for, and their demurrers assert as reason for a denial of the specific performance prayed that appellee should pay the rental for the year 1907, due October 1, 1907, subsequent to his election on August 30, 1907, to purchase the property described in the instrument; and this insistence is attempted to be supported in argument by the assertion that a contrary construction of the provision under consideration would sanction a purchase at the stated sum, nothwithstanding every annual rent note was unpaid at the time of the election by Cochran to purchase the premises, and that such a construction would lead to an absurdity, in negation of any such intention of the parties to the contract.

Where a contract is unambiguous, is plain in expression, we know of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Illinois Sur. Co. v. Donaldson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 9 Mayo 1918
    ... ... of law or of public policy, are beyond the reach of rules of ... construction, and the obligations they impose must be ... recognized and enforced in accordance with the thus ... unequivocally manifested intent of the parties. Lee v ... Cochran, 157 Ala. 311, 313, 47 So. 581; 9 Cyc. pp. 577, ... 578, note 95; Benjamin v. McConnel, 4 Gilman (Ill.) ... 536, 46 Am.Dec. 474; Sanford v. Howard, 29 Ala. 684, ... 693, 68 Am.Dec. 101, citing Benjamin v. McConnel, supra. The ... terms "larceny" and "embezzlement," as ... employed in this ... ...
  • Rudisill Soil Pipe Co. v. Eastham Soil Pipe & Foundry Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 1923
    ... ... 351, 360, 52 So. 426, this court ... said, of contracts generally, that if it "offends no law ... may be peculiar and may bear grievously upon one of the ... parties thereto, yet we know of no judicial right to avoid it ... because the accepted terms are onerous." Lee v ... Cochran, 157 Ala. 311, 47 So. 581; Bullock v ... Coleman, 136 Ala. 610, 33 So. 884; L. & N. R. R. Co ... v. Shepard, 126 Ala. 416, 28 So. 202; Mobile Bldg. & ... Loan Assn. v. Robertson, 65 Ala. 382. The motive of ... bondholders, however mercenary, may not deprive them of the ... right of ... ...
  • Springdale Gayfer's Store Co. v. D. H. Holmes Co., 1 Div. 259
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 17 Agosto 1967
    ...without ambiguity their intention, no court can alter the agreement, and no room for judicial construction is left. Lee v. Cochran, 157 Ala. 311, 313, 47 So. 581. When the parties reduce their agreements and obligations to writing, the writing, in the absence of mistake or fraud, is the sol......
  • City of Albertville, Ala. v. UNITED STATES FIDEL. & G. CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 11 Febrero 1960
    ...tend to hold a promisor strictly to the literal terms of his promise. Stone v. Dennis, 1836, 3 Port. 231, 241, 242; Lee v. Cochran, 1908, 157 Ala. 311, 47 So. 581, 582; Marx v. Kilby Locomotive & Machine Works, 1909, 162 Ala. 295, 50 So. 136, 137; Capital Fertilizer Co. v. Ashcraft-Wilkinso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT