North Alabama Development Co. v. Short

• Decision Date: 06 June 1893
• Citation: 101 Ala. 333,13 So. 385
• Parties: NORTH ALABAMA DEVELOPMENT CO., LIMITED. v. SHORT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 385

101 Ala. 333

NORTH ALABAMA DEVELOPMENT CO., LIMITED. v. SHORT.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 6, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Franklin county; H. C. Speake, Judge.

Action by Albert Short against the North Alabama Development Company on a promissory note made by one A. Parish to the plaintiff and assumed and agreed to be paid by the North Alabama Development Company, in part payment of the purchase money for certain land bought of A. Parish. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Rouehac & Nathan, for appellant.

Almon &amp Bullock, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

Albert Short, the owner of certain real estate, sold and conveyed the same to one A. Parish, who executed to his vendor, Short his promissory note for $600. Parish sold the same land to the North Alabama Development Company, which company "assumed and agreed to pay at maturity the note executed by Parish to Short." Short was not a party to the conveyance and agreement between Parish and the North Alabama Development Company. The only question in the case is whether Short can maintain an action in a court of law against the North Alabama Development Company on its covenant and agreement with Parish, its vendor, to pay the Short debt. Whatever may be the rule in other states, it is not an open question in this state. In Dimmick v. Register, 92 Ala. 458, 9 South. Rep. 79, the court uses this language "It was a promise the creditors could claim the benefit of, and on which they could maintain an action in their own names. The debt became prima facie a debt to them, and Wilkins and associates [the person making the sale] could maintain no action upon it, unless the creditors repudiated the substitution, or, the promise not being kept, coerced or took steps to coerce payment from the original debtor. We discussed these questions so fully both on reason and authority in Young v. Hawkins, 74 Ala. 370, and Coleman v. Hatcher, 77 Ala. 217, that we deem it unnecessary to further reproduce the argument. The promise inured to the benefit of the creditors, and prima facie they alone can claim payment or sue for the breach of the agreement. See, also, Huckabee v. May, 14 Ala. 263; Lockwood v. Nelson, 16 Ala. 294; Mason v. Hall, 30 Ala. 599." The precise question, and upon a contract containing the exact covenant and assumptions as in the case at bar, was recently decided in the circuit court of the United States...