Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dupree
Decision Date | 18 June 1931 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 34. |
Citation | 223 Ala. 420,136 So. 811 |
Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. DUPREE ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing October 15, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Action on a contractor's bond by O. D. Dupree and R. O. Noojin partners doing business as the Dupree Hardware & Lumber Company, against the Maryland Casualty Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Hood & Murphree, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Goodhue & Lusk, of Gadsden, for appellees.
The complaint, in two counts, was for the breach of a bond and a common count in assumpsit.
The motion for the transfer to the equity side of the court to enable the defendant to assert an equitable defense was denied on the ground that such equitable defense in the nature of subrogation could be interposed and tried in the pending action at law. The pleading was in short by consent as follows: "It is agreed between the parties in the above-captioned case, that the defendant may plead in short by consent all defenses appropriate to the causes of action stated in the several counts of the complaint, and that the plaintiff may reply to such defenses in short by consent all matters appropriate, and that either party may offer in proof the testimony of any witness or any evidence competent and relevant to the issues in the cause."
There was tender on the part of the defendant of the amount it admitted to be due.
The court gave the general affirmative charge for the plaintiffs on request in writing upon the agreed statement of facts in the following words:
And denied defendant's written requests, as follows:
The facts in short are that Mr. Clark entered into a contract with the board of education to construct a school building in the city of Gadsden for the gross sum of $20,175, of which 85 per cent. was to be paid in the installments indicated, and the final payment within ten days after fulfillment and on written certificate of the architect. The board retained the 15 per cent. of the cost of labor and materials for its protection and those who were supplying the same to the contractor. The latter executed bond as provided by statute (General Acts, Reg. Sess., 1927, pp. 37, 38), and appellant was the surety thereon.
The plaintiffs' witness Dupree testified that his firm loaned Clark money to the amount of $650 on November 30, 1929, and it was agreed that he would repay it "out of his next estimate"; so of the loan of $454 to Clark of date of December 7, 1929, though the bill states the date as December 7, 1924. We take the date from the agreed statement of facts as December 7, 1929, the time of the building construction. He stated the "conversation" occurring on delivery of the check on payment by the board, as follows:
Witness was thereupon asked the following question: "At that time you agreed to give him the $400? To which he answered: "Yes sir."
The respective contentions of the parties are declared in the agreed statement of facts, as follows:
The items of credit by cash and goods returned amounted to .. $4,118.15,
to which (if added the check of) .............................. 4,012.00
----------
would aggregate ............................................... $8,130.15.
and if this sum be deducted from the contract ................. 9,265.32.
----------
would leave a balance of ...................................... $1,134.97.
Such is defendant's view as to the amount that was tendered, and interest. The date from which interest was to be calculated is fixed by the agreed statement of facts.
The record shows that appellees advanced several sums of money to Clark in amounts aggregating $2,614.11, and this sum was deducted from the $4,012, leaving the balance of $1,397.89. However, appellees were only credited on the contract price of $9,265.32 with the $4,118.15 (the amount of cash and goods, returned items), and the alleged balance from the board's check of $4,012 (after payment of the $2,614.11), which alleged sum or balance was $1,397.89, thus leaving the alleged balance due of $3,749.08, for which recovery is sought.
Thus was presented the question of a right application of payments-of a credit of the $2,614.11 out of the board's check of $4,012-appellant contending that this sum ($2,614.11) should have been applied on and in the extinguishment of the "labor and materialmen's lien" on the East Gadsden School building furnished by appellees (and not to other and individual matters between the parties), and to such extend relieving appellant as Clark's surety for such claims; that is, the sum should not have been applied in the reimbursement of appellees for moneys advanced by them to Clark on the latter's application.
Whatever may be the right of appellant, under the statutes (sections 6488, 6490, Code) or decisions, to transfer a pending cause to the equity docket that it may set up its rights in the nature of subrogation (American Bonding Co. of Baltimore v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Montgomery, 206 Ala. 639, 91 So 480; Greil Bros. Co. v. City of Montgomery, 182 Ala. 291, 62 So. 692, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 38), it is established that the action of the trial court in overruling the motion to transfer may not be considered, for it has been declared that the right to review an action granting such motion does not extend to the denial of such application or motion. Wiggins v. Stewart Bros., 215 Ala. 9, 109 So. 101; Fountain v. State, 211 Ala. 586, 589, 100 So. 892; Pearson v. City of Birmingham, 210 Ala. 296, 97 So. 916; Claborne v. Nichols, 204 Ala. 282, 85 So. 415. It is further established that, having affirmatively invoked the court to the denial of motion to transfer to the equity side of the docket, the successful party may not in the same action contend that such equitable defense cannot be considered in the trial of the action at law. Having taken the contrary position on the hearing of the motion which was successful-that the equitable defense was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Sur. Corp. v. Fisher, Century Indem. Co., Intervenor-Respondent, 45641
...Ardmore Book & News Co., 138 Okl. 180, 280 P. 805; Merchants' Insurance Co. v. Herber, 68 Minn. 420, 71 N.W. 624; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dupree, 223 Ala. 420, 136 So. 811; Farmers' Bank v. Hayes, 6 Cir., 58 F.2d 34; Exchange State Bank v. Federal Surety Co., 8 Cir., 28 F.2d 485; Lacy v. M......
-
State Bank of Wheatland v. Turpen
... ... Turpen and ... Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, in which Shoshoni ... Garage, Inc., intervened. From the judgment, defendant ... Fidelity & ... assignors. And it has been so held. Maryland Casualty Co ... v. Philbrick and Nicholson, 147 Wash. 277, 266 P. 142, ... 145. Whether or not a ... Johnson etc., (C. C ... A.) 67 F.2d 121; Maryland Casualty Co. v ... Dupree, 223 Ala. 420, 136 So. 811; Note, 21 A. L. R ... 714; 49 A. L. R. 955; 21 R. C. L. 111. Still ... ...
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First Nat. Bank
... ... This was in payment of the superior lien ... In ... Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dupree, 223 Ala. 420, 136 ... So. 811, 814, it was declared: "With full knowledge ... ...
-
U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Bass
...followed in Alabama. See, e. g., State of Alabama v. Bessemer Materials, Inc., 224 F.Supp. 182 (N.D.Ala.1964); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dupree, 223 Ala. 420, 136 So. 811 (1931); Citizens' Bank of Guntersville v. Pearson, The doctrine of subrogation applies to sureties who have paid a debt d......