Morgan v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 22 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 904 |
| Parties | MORGAN v. LEWIS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.
Bill by John Lewis against W.B. Morgan. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Edgar Allen, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Allen & Fisk, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Bill by a vendor (appellee) to compel specific performance on the part of the vendee (appellant) of a complete written contract to purchase certain lands owned by the vendor. The appellant insists here, as he did in the court below, that this remedy is not available to a vendor, and that an enforceable decree in the premises cannot be soundly contrived. Both reason and authority confirm the correctness of the view entertained by the trial court, viz.: That the remedy by specific performance is available to a vendor of land; that the nature of the subject-matter of the contract, real estate, invests the vendor with the right to elect either to sue at law for damages for the vendee's breach of the contract or to invoke equity to compel specific performance of the contract of purchase by the vendee; and that appropriate decree may enter requiring specific performance on the part of the vendee, by a fixed time, after the vendor has deposited in the court, for the vendee, a conveyance to him of a good title to the land; failing acceptance of the deed and payment of the purchase price and interest by the vendee, it may thereupon be contingently decreed that the land be sold to satisfy the vendor's demand, and that execution against the vendee issue to enforce the payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price and interest that the net proceeds of the sale fail to satisfy. 6 Pom.Eq.Jur. § 747; Fry's Spec.Perf. (5th Ed.) § 72; 36 Cyc. pp. 552, 565, 566; 3 Elliott on Contracts, § 2317, p.
496. There is no statute in this state operating to qualify or deny the vendor's remedy by specific performance in such circumstances.
The court below so concluded. Its decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.E.L. Mccaskill Co. v. Dekle
... ... purchase price, since the remedy of specific performance is ... mutual as between vendor and vendee. Morgan v ... Eaton, 59 Fla. 562, 52 So. 305, 138 Am. St. Rep. 167; ... Yulee v. Canova, 11 Fla. 9; Old Colony R. R. Co., 6 ... Gray (Mass.) 25, 66 Am ... That the final decree ... entered is in accordance with the settled practice in other ... jurisdictions must be conceded. Morgan v. Lewis, 203 ... Ala. 47, 82 So. 7; Bockelman v. Spires (Neb.) 193 ... N.W. 334; Heins v. Thompson & Flieth Lbr. Co., 165 ... Wis. 563, 163 N.W. 173; ... ...
-
Maya Corporation v. Smith
...has any equity, it is to enforce a vendor's lien by him as in the nature of specific performance available to a vendor. Morgan v. Lewis, 203 Ala. 47, 82 So. 7; Corpus Juris 1236, note 99; 66 Corpus Juris 1459, note 28. To make effectual such right, the Cherokee Mining Company holds the land......
-
Renard v. Allen
...performance with a provision for a sale if the money decree is not paid. Typical of these cases is the decision in Morgan v. Lewis, 203 Ala. 47, 82 So. 7 (1919): 'Bill by a vendor (appellee) to compel specific performance on the part of the vendee (appellant) of a complete written contract ......
-
Chandler v. Bodeker
...That a vendor of lands may have specific performance is not questioned. A form of decree effecting such relief is outlined in Morgan v. Lewis, 203 Ala. 47, 82 So. 7. ANDERSON, C.J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur. ...