Oden v. Lockwood
| Decision Date | 28 February 1903 |
| Citation | 33 So. 895,136 Ala. 514 |
| Parties | ODEN v. LOCKWOOD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; W. W. Wilkerson, Judge.
Suit by E. J. Oden against J. L. Lockwood. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
It was averred in the bill that for many years prior to 1898 the complainant was in the continuous employ of the defendant and had performed for him much valuable service for which he had never been paid. That finally, as compensation for services rendered to him, the defendant told the complainant to pick out a piece of land that was suitable for the purpose, and he would purchase it for him and build thereon a distillery, which would be operated by the complainant, and that the net proceeds arising from the sale of the product of said distillery would be equally divided between the complainant and the respondent. That it was expressly stated by the complainant that the land to be purchased, and the distillery to be built thereon, was to belong and be the property of the complainant. That in accordance with these directions, and placing confidence in what the respondent said, the complainant selected a suitable piece of property for the purpose desired, which the respondent purchased, and upon which the respondent had constructed a distillery plant but that, contrary to the promise made by the defendant, and in violation of the agreement made by him with the complainant, the defendant had the title to the property so purchased made in his own name, and the deed conveying the same was executed to him, the defendant, and that the defendant, in violation of such promise, claimed and asserted ownership to said land and the improvements which had been made thereon. That the distillery had been successfully operated, and money had been made therefrom, but that the defendant had never divided any of the profits arising from such business with the complainant, nor had the defendant ever paid to the complainant anything for the services rendered by the complainant to him. The prayer of the bill was that a decree be rendered declaring that the defendant holds the lands described, and the improvements thereof, in trust for the complainant; that the defendant be required to execute a deed to the complainant conveying to him the title in fee simple to said land and improvements, and to all rights, privileges, and appurtenances; and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carkonen v. Alberts, 27115.
... ... cannot be compelled to convey them to his principal: ... Garrow v. Davis, 15 How. 272, 16 L.Ed. 692; Oden ... v. Lockwood, 136 Ala. 514, 33 So. 895; Dooly v ... Pinson, 145 Ala. 659, 39 So. 664, Mitchell v ... Wright, 155 Ala ... ...
-
Julian v. Woolbert
... ... & ... Mfg. Co. v. Winchester, supra; Crothers v. Lee, supra; Beggs ... v. Edison Co., supra; Hall v. McKeller, 155 Ala ... 508, 46 So. 460; Oden v. Lockwood, 136 Ala. 514, 33 ... So. 895; Pollak v. Chaflin Co., 138 Ala. 644, 35 So ... 645; Terrell v. Southern Ry. Co., 164 Ala. 423, 51 ... ...
-
Moss v. Winston
... ... said of that agreement that it "is a parol trust, pure ... and simple, in violation of the statute. Oden v. Lockwood, ... 136 Ala. 514, 33 So. 895;" section 6917, Code. Such was ... the effect of the case of Hughes v. Letcher, 168 ... Ala. 314, 52 So ... ...
-
South v. Pinion
...577, 578, 21 So. 337, rather than cases denying that a parol trust in land can be established under the statute in equity (Oden v. Lockwood, 136 Ala. 514, 33 So. 895) in absence of fraud (Corley v. Vizard, 203 Ala. 564, 84 So. 299). Under the circumstances set forth in the bill, there was n......