Milner v. Stanford

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Parties: MILNER ET AL. v. STANFORD.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 644

102 Ala. 277

MILNER ET AL. v. STANFORD.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 16, 1894

Appeal from chancery court, Butler county; John A. Foster, Judge.

Suit by A. J. Stanford against Mary C. Milner, administratrix of E C. Milner, deceased, and others. Decree for complainant. Respondents appeal. Reversed.

Gamble & Powell, for appellants.

J. M Whitehead, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The original bill averred that Stanford, the complainant purchased a parcel of land from E. C. Milner, deceased,-the intestate and ancestor of the respondents,-was put in possession under the sale, and subsequently paid the purchase money in full during the lifetime of said Milner, but that the vendor failed to execute a conveyance to the vendee; and its purpose and prayer were to have the contract of sale specifically performed, and the execution of a conveyance by the administratrix and heirs at law of Milner decreed. At the hearing on the merits the bill was amended by striking out its averments and prayer in respect of a bargain and sale by Milner to the complainant, and by alleging in lieu thereof that "the land was purchased by the said E. C. Milner from the [Mobile & Montgomery] railroad company, for the complainant, under an agreement by which the said Milner was to purchase said land, and advance the money for complainant, to be paid back by the complainant, with actual expenses and interest,-the said Milner to take the title deed in his own name, and thus hold it until the purchase money, expenses, and interest was paid, which was sixty dollars;" that said purchase money, interest, and expenses were paid by complainant to Milner, according to the terms of the agreement, about the year 1886; "and that said Milner repeatedly promised to execute title deeds to said land before his death, but died without doing so." The prayer of the amended bill is "that a resulting trust be declared in favor of the complainant as to said land, and that the register in chancery be required, to execute to your orator a deed to the same," etc.

The respondents moved to strike out this amendment on the ground that it was an entire departure from the original bill. This motion, we think, was properly denied. The amendment merely varied the details of one and the same transaction, without operating any change in the rights of the parties. The relief to which the complainant was entitled was precisely the same whether the bill was one for the specific performance of a contract of sale, or for the declaration and effectuation of a resulting trust. In either aspect, upon proof of the averments, the complainant was entitled to have the respondents' title invested in him, and this on the same terms,-the payment of the agreed value of the land,-whether such value was to be considered as money loaned to him, and used for him in the purchase from the railroad company, or as money which he had agreed to pay as on a sale by Milner to him. Indeed, the bill, as amended, was in the nature of the bill amended. Both, in a sense, seek specific performance of a contract. Manning v. Pippen, 86 Ala. 357, 5 So 572. But, while a bill to...