Phoenix Chair Co. v. Daniel
Decision Date | 17 May 1934 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 546. |
Citation | 228 Ala. 579,155 So. 363 |
Parties | PH×NIX CHAIR CO. v. DANIEL et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. M. Walker, Judge.
Bill by the Ph nix Chair Company against A. S. Daniel and others. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing it, complainant appeals.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
See also, 155 So. 532.
Monette & Taylor, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Erle Pettus, of Birmingham, for appellees.
Bill in equity to reform the indorsements made upon certain promissory notes executed by the Daniel Furniture Company Inc., to the complainant, appellant here.
The bill was filed against A. S. Daniel, W. E. Daniel, L. C Daniel, and J. M. Rowall.
A. S. Daniel filed demurrers to the bill as amended, the demurrers being directed to the bill as a whole. On submission upon this demurrer, the court entered a decree sustaining the same, and dismissed the bill of complaint. Along with this decree, the judge filed an opinion in which he said:
The above opinion accompanying the decree was tantamount to a declaration by the court that the complainant would not be allowed to amend its bill, and tantamount to a denial of the right of amendment. In dismissing the bill under the circumstances there was manifest error. Jones v. Henderson (Ala. Sup.) 153 So. 214, 218; Ezzell v. First National Bank, 218 Ala. 462, 119 So. 2.
The bill is loosely drawn, and is entirely omissive in averment as to when the mistake was discovered, or as to when the holder of said notes undertook to enforce liability against the complainant on his indorsements of said notes. The averments of the bill left it open to the ground of demurrer raising the question of laches. However, there is nothing appearing. in the bill that would show that this defect could not be met by proper and timely amendment.
The rule of our decisions in respect to laches is stated in the recent case of Mullen v. First National Bank, 226 Ala. 305, 146 So. 802, 804, where it was observed:
The demurrer taking the point that, for aught averred to show an excuse for the delay in seeking reformation, the complainant was barred of his relief by laches, was well sustained. But, as pointed out above, the court fell into error in dismissing the bill upon the theory that it could not be amended by averring facts to show an equitable excuse for the delay, as for instance that the mistake was not sooner discovered, or that complainant filed his bill as soon as, or within a reasonable time after, a right was asserted, under the indorsements, contrary to the real intentions of the parties. 23 R. C. L. p. 352, § 49; Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U.S. 260, 11 S.Ct. 972, 999, 35 L.Ed. 678. Of course the facts averred must show a sufficient excuse for the delay, not left to rest merely upon statements of conclusion of the pleader. Upon the record before us, we cannot assume that a proper amendment cannot be made. That remains to be determined.
It is made to appear from the bill that the Daniel Furniture Company, Inc., was indebted to the complainant in the sum of $1,009.14, and in settlement of this indebtedness the debtor executed and delivered to the complainant its thirty-six promissory notes. Thereafter, the complainant received information to the effect that the debtor was in financial difficulty, and was settling its outstanding obligations on the basis of 50 cents on the dollar. Complainant, on receipt of this information, communicated to the debtor its willingness to accept settlement of the notes on that basis.
The debtor responded to the letter of complainant saying:
The complainant replied to the debtor's letter signifying its willingness to settle on the terms stated, and W. E. Daniel, for the debtor, wrote complainant, under date of November 3, 1926, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wise v. Helms
... ... James, ... 55 Ala. 525(6); Martin v. Branch Bank at Decatur, 31 ... Ala. 115; Phoenix Chair Co. v. Daniel, 228 Ala. 579, ... 155 So. 363; Woodlawn Realty & Development Co. v ... ...
-
Ussery v. Darrow, 8 Div. 964.
... ... should be brought forward by way of defense. Phoenix ... Chair Co. v. Daniel, 228 Ala. 579, 155 So. 363; ... Mullen v. First National Bank, 226 Ala ... ...
-
Woods v. Sanders
... ... complainant to show special matters excusing his delay ... Phoenix Chair Co. v. Daniel, 228 Ala. 579, 155 So ... 363; Drummond v. Drummond, supra ... ...
-
Gilmore v. Sexton
...or purchasers from them with notice of the facts. 23 R.C.L. page 339, section 23, and cases cited in note; Phoenix Chair Co. v. Daniel, 228 Ala. 579, 155 So. 363, 365. The allegations of the bill are to the effect that complainant was in the open, notorious, adverse and peaceable possession......