Murray v. Webster, 6 Div. 190
| Citation | 54 So.2d 505,256 Ala. 248 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 190 |
| Parties | MURRAY v. WEBSTER et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Ling & Bains, Bessemer, for appellant.
McEniry, McEniry & McEniry, Bessemer, for appellees.
Under date of April 1, 1946, T. O. Murray, appellant here, respondent below, entered into a lease sale contract with Lilly B. Webster and Annie Bell Simon, appellees here, complainants below, leasing to them a house and lot in the City of Bessemer for a term of eighty-eight months for a recited consideration of $1,200, payable $100 in cash and the balance in monthly installments of $12.50 each, and in addition thereto the payment of taxes. The lease agreement contained a condition subsequent that if at the end of the term the lessees had paid all of the installments of rent and taxes, and had complied with all the conditions of the contract, then the transaction should be treated as a sale, that is to say, the lessor would treat the rent paid under the lease as a payment for the property and would execute a deed thereto to the lessees. The instrument provided for a forfeiture of the lease upon failure of lessees to pay rents as they became due, the right of the lessor to reenter the premises and terminate the lease being reserved without the necessity of giving notice to or making demand upon lessees for payment of rents due. It was further provided that if the lessees became in arrears for as much as two months during the first year, or as much as three months at any time thereafter, or should fail to pay the taxes or to comply with any other condition of the contract, then the agreement of lessor to treat the rents paid as payment for the property should become a nullity, and that failure of lessees to comply with any of the conditions of the instrument should 'ipso facto render the said provision a nullity, and make said party of the second part a lessee under this instrument, without any rights whatever except the rights of lessee without any notice or action whatever upon the part of the party of the first part.'
Policies of fire insurance were issued from year to year by the respondent American Union Insurance Company upon the improvements upon the lot of land. Such a policy was issued April 24, 1949, for a term of three years and was in force when, on October 4, 1950, the dwelling house on the property was partially destroyed by fire. The face amount of the policy was $1,000, and the insurer agreed to a loss in the sum of $850. On the following day the lessor notified the lessees that he was cancelling the contract by reason of their default in payments. Lessees offered to pay up all sums in arrears or to pay the entire amount of the consideration expressed in the contract and, in the latter event, have a deed to the property. These offers were refused by the lessor who, on November 20, 1950, instituted against the lessees a suit of unlawful detainer.
Thereupon the lessees filed this bill in equity against the lessor and the insurance company, setting up the facts hereinabove set out. It is alleged that at the time of filing the bill complainants had paid, in addition to $100 in cash upon taking possession of the premises, forty-five of the monthly installments, the last payment being made on June 7, 1950, of that installment which was due January 1, 1950, and that 'said respondent by his acts during the entire contract has led the complainants to believe that strict performance of the agreement in the contract would not be insisted upon.' It is further alleged that the policy of insurance provided that the property in question was sold to complainants under a lease sale contract; that each year prior thereto a like policy, with like provision, had been issued, and that, while the lease sale contract made no provision for insurance, the respondent Murray charged complainants with the premiums for such insurance; that complainants have paid each year's premium as the same became due or, if they have not paid this premium, they stand ready and willing to do so, and if not paid it was because no demand was made upon them; and that before receiving a deed respondent would require them to pay such premiums, and that such premiums were charged to complainants on the books of respondent's insurance agent.
The bill prays for an order restraining prosecution of the unlawful detainer suit; for ascertainment of the amount complainants were in arrears under the contract and permission to pay such arrearages and continue under the contract or, in the alternative, for ascertainment of the entire amount due under the contract and that complainants be allowed to pay such entire amount and that respondent be required to make and execute to them a deed to the property. It is further prayed that the American Union Insurance Company be required to pay into the registry of the court the amount ascertained to be the loss to the property by fire, and that complainants have the benefit of the insurance money, either by way of its application in restoration of the property, or by way of credit on the balance due under the contract.
The respondent insurance company filed an answer and cross bill impleading both the lessor and the lessees as conflicting claimants under the policy. Without objection, the insurer was permitted to pay the agreed amount of the loss into court and be discharged.
After submission on the pleading and the proof offered, a decree favorable to the complainants was rendered. The decree ascertained the balance due on the consideration expressed in the contract, the amount of taxes paid by the respondent-lessor, and the amount of the insurance premiums paid by him. It was directed that the aggregate of these amounts be paid to the respondent out of the insurance money, and that respondent thereupon execute a deed to the complainants. It was further decreed that the costs of the suit be paid out of the insurance money on deposit, the balance, if any, to be paid to complainants. Implicit in the decree was the conclusion that any forfeiture of the contractural provisions of which respondent-lessor might have availed had been waived by him, and that the insurance was in fact for the benefit of the complainants-lessees. In these phases the decree is assigned as error.
In the case of Spangler v. Barber, 245 Ala. 386, 17 So.2d 232, we had before us a lease sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Williams
...617(2) (11 Cal.Rptr. 634); cf. Sievers v. Union Assur. Soc. of London (1912), 20 Cal.App. 250, 251 (128 P. 771); Murray v. Webster (1951), 256 Ala. 248 (54 So.2d 505, 508(3)).) This principle gives rise to the supplemental rule that, in the absence of a special contract, the proceeds of a f......
-
Russell v. Williams
...Cal.App.2d 613, 617, 11 Cal.Rptr. 634; cf. Sievers v. Union Assur. Soc. of London, 20 Cal.App. 250, 251, 128 P. 771; Murray v. Webster, 256 Ala. 248, 54 So.2d 505, 508.) This principle gives rise to the supplemental rule that, in the absence of special contract, the proceeds of a fire insur......
-
Commercial Union Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Parvin
...contract under the terms of which the title is not to pass until payment of the purchase price has an insurable interest. Murray v. Webster, 256 Ala. 248, 54 So.2d 505; Robinson v. Wade, 220 Ala. 693, 127 So. 170; Bowden v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n, 36 Cal.2d 406, 224 P.2d......
-
National Biscuit Co. v. Wilson
... ... 256 Ala. 241 ... NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. et al ... 6 Div. 34 ... Supreme Court of Alabama ... Oct. 11, 1951 ... ...
-
CHAPTER 2
...Inc., 189 Cal. App. 2d 613, 617 (1961); Sievers v. Union Assur. Soc’y of London, 20 Cal. App. 250, 251 (1912); Murray v. Webster, 256 Ala. 248 (1951).) This principle gives rise to the supplemental rule that, in the absence of a special contract, the proceeds of a fire insurance policy are ......