Mulloy v. Cook
| Decision Date | 18 December 1891 |
| Citation | 101 Ala. 178,10 So. 349 |
| Parties | MULLOY v. COOK. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Cleburne county; S. K. MCSPADDEN Chancellor.
Bill in equity by Hiram Mulloy against Duncan Cook to enjoin an action of ejectment and to enforce a contract to convey the land. Decree for respondent. Complainant appeals. Reversed.
The bill averred that on January 23, 1874, the said Duncan Cook entered upon 80 acres of government land, paying the entrance fee therefor, and obtained the receiver's receipt, and that afterwards said Duncan Cook abandoned his homestead entry; that under the provisions of an act of congress the said Cook was allowed to purchase said land at $1.25 per acre, less the amount of the entrance fee; that on September 20, 1888, under an agreement between said Cook and the complainant, by the terms of which said Cook was to purchase the land, taking title in his own name, but was to convey to the complainant the title to said land as soon as he received the patent from the government the complainant furnished said Cook with the money necessary to purchase the said land from the government; that said Cook used said money in the purchase of said land, and received the certificate and receipt of said purchase from the United States government, which he delivered to the complainant, who thereupon entered into possession of said land; and that complainant afterwards secured a patent to be regularly issued to the said Cook. The bill further avers that the complainant was in quiet possession on the land on December 29, 1889, when the said Cook instituted the action of ejectment to recover possession of said land. The bill then prays to have the statutory action of ejectment enjoined, and that the chancellor decree a trust in said land for the complainant. The defendant demurred to the said bill, on the ground that it seeks to enforce a contract contrary to public policy, and therefore void. Upon the submission of the cause on the demurrer, the chancellor sustained it.
James Savage, for appellant.
Kelly & Smith, for appellee.
We do not think the present bill is open to the objection urged against it by the demurrers. It cannot be said that the contract sought to be specifically enforced is violative of the public policy of the United States. We know of no statute, nor of any general policy deducible from the statutes of the federal government, which would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orrell v. Bay Mfg. Co.
...founded on an adequate consideration, and a court of equity is without power to give relief. Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483; Mulloy v. Cook, 10 So. 349; Mulloy v. 17 So. 899; Dewhurst v. Wright, So. Rep., 682; Milliken v. Carmichael, 33 So. 9; 134 Ala. 623; Woodson Iron Co. v. Strickland......
-
Hale v. McGraw
... ... v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483, 10 Sup.Ct. 905, 34 L.Ed. 272; ... Millikin v. Carmichael, 134 Ala. 623, 33 So. 9, 92 ... Am.St.Rep. 45; Mulloy v. Cook, 101 Ala. 178, 10 So ... 349, 17 So. 899; Woodstock I. Co. v. Strickland et ... al., 121 Ala. 616, 25 So. 818; to which may be added ... ...
-
Woodstock Iron Co. v. Strickland
...v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483, 10 S.Ct. 905, are cited. There is no decision of this court directly upon the point; but in Mulloy v. Cook, 101 Ala. 178, 10 So. 349, and 17 899, it is held that a transaction of this sort, to be enforceable, must be brought within the act quoted above, and Dewhurs......
-
Millikin v. Carmichael
... ... absolutely void. Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483, ... 10 S.Ct. 905, 34 L.Ed. 272; Mulloy v. Cook, 101 Ala ... 178, 10 So. 349, 17 So. 899; Iron Co. v. Strickland, ... 121 Ala. 616, 25 So. 818. The subsequent acknowledgment by ... ...