Matthews v. Bartee

• Decision Date: 18 January 1923
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 841.
• Citation: 95 So. 289,209 Ala. 25
• Parties: MATTHEWS ET AL. v. BARTEE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

95 So. 289

209 Ala. 25

MATTHEWS ET AL. v. BARTEE.

5 Div. 841.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 18, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; Lum Duke, Judge.

Bill by S. M. Bartee against G. H. Matthews and M. J. Reeder. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Barnes & Walker, of Opelika, for appellants.

Jas. W Strother and J. Percy Oliver, both of Dadeville, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The amended bill, filed by Bartee, appellee, sought specific performance of a contract with appellant Matthews to sell Bartee about 327 acres of land at the purchase price of $10 the acre. Subsequent to this agreement, and, according to Bartee's contention, while it was of force, Matthews and others having an interest in the land conveyed it, for an advanced price, to the appellant M. J. Reeder, who, it is insisted by Bartee, was at the time and theretofore advised of the existence of appellee's contract with Matthews to purchase the land. The court awarded the relief sought requiring, among other things, conveyance to Bartee of the title acquired by Reeder. The only errors assigned refer to the final decree under submission on pleading and proof.

The following written memorandum was executed by Matthews:

"327 acres of land

10 per acre

-------------------------------

$3270.00

$ 25.00 cash

-------------------------------

$3245.00

745.00 to be paid in few days

-------------------------------

$2500.00

"Columbus, Ga., Nov. 7, 1918.

"Received of S. M. Bartee $25.00 Twenty-Five Dollars as part payment on 327 acres more or less, located 1 1/2 miles West of Roxana, Ala., in Lee and Tallapoosa counties, Ala known as the Matthews place. $745.00 to be paid as soon as papers are fixed up & balance of $2500.00 to run for 12 months at 8% interest with the privelidge of running the principal another year if so desired by Mr. Bartee. G. A. Matthews."

If Reeder acquired the property with notice of Bartee's contractual right to purchase it, Reeder's rights in the premises were subordinate to those of Bartee; and, if Bartee was found entitled to the specific performance sought, Reeder's interest, so acquired, was subject to divestiture in the process of effectuating specific performance of Matthews' contract to sell and convey the land to Bartee. Forney v. City of Birmingham, 173 Ala. 1, 55 So. 618; Bentley v. Barnes, 162 Ala. 524, 527, 50 So. 361.

The memorandum reproduced above is not affected with such omission, uncertainty, or indefiniteness as renders it offensive to the statute of frauds (Code, § 4289, subd. 5), or as would justify the denial of relief to the vendee through specific performance. The memorandum-in form of a receipt for the cash payment stated therein-is certain in respect of the parties thereto; the amount of the consideration for the sale and purchase of the land; the area bargained to be sold, being the "Matthews place" 1 1/2 miles west of Roxana, Ala., in the named counties; and the terms of the sale, viz. $25 in cash, $745 "to be paid in a few days," which is further defined to be "as soon as the papers are fixed up," and the remainder, $2,500, to "run," to be paid in 12 months at 8 per cent. interest, with the privilege in the vendee to defer payment of the balance a second year. A written contract for the sale and purchase of lands is sufficient in respect of compliance with the statute of frauds if the executed instrument contains "the names of the parties, the subject-matter of...