Qualls v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 4 Div. 223.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 223. |
| Citation | 7 So.2d 558,242 Ala. 619 |
| Parties | QUALLS v. UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; C.C. Brannen, Judge.
John C. Walters, of Troy, for appellant. E.C. Orme and J.H Wilkerson, both of Troy, for appellee.
Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Pike County, Alabama in Equity, overruling respondent's demurrer to complainant's bill of complaint which seeks to enforce an alleged vendor's lien upon certain lands described in the bill. A copy of the written agreement which is the foundation of the suit is attached to and made a part of the bill.
In substance, the bill alleges that complainant and respondent entered into a written contract, under the terms of which the complainant, in consideration of the sum of $5,000, of which sum $500 was paid in cash on or before the execution of the agreement, and the balance evidenced by a promissory note payable in 15 annual installments, the first of which was due and payable on December 1st, 1940, agreed to sell to respondent the lands described therein; title to said lands to remain in complainant during the term of the agreement and to be transferred to respondent upon the payment by him of the agreed purchase price; that the note contained an acceleration clause giving to the complainant the option upon the default in the payment of any installment, or the breach of any covenant contained in the contract, to declare the principal in each unpaid installment and the interest accrued thereon, immediately due and payable, and the right to "proceed to enforce the collection thereof, or cancel said contract as provided therein"; that respondent breached said contract by failing to pay the installment due on December 1st, 1940, in the sum of $260.98, and that under the terms of the contract complainant exercises the option to declare all of the monies due thereunder. The bill further alleges that complainant is ready, able and willing to convey to respondent the lands described in the contract upon the payment by respondent of the balance of the purchase money, and that respondent refuses to make said payment.
The bill prays that the Court will decree that complainant has a vendor's lien upon the land; that said lands be sold to satisfy said lien, and that the decree ascertain the amount of money shown to be due upon said contract and note, including a reasonable attorney's fee provided for in the note; and that if any deficiency exists after the proceeds of the sale of said lands have been applied to the amount ascertained to be due to complainant by respondent, that the Court will enter a decree in favor of complainant for such deficiency; and for general relief.
Three separate grounds of respondent's demurrer are specially assigned to three separate paragraphs of the bill.
This Court in the case of Michie et al. v. Bradshaw et al., 227 Ala. 302, 149 So. 809, 815, speaking through Mr. Justice Bouldin, said: "Demurrer specially assigned to a 'paragraph' of a bill is inapt, unless such paragraph sets forth some aspect of the bill on which relief is prayed." Thus, demurrers assigned severally to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the present bill, which merely set forth various features of the transaction upon which, in connection with other averments, relief is sought, are inapt and were properly overruled.
Respondent's other grounds of demurrer are based on the want of equity in the bill, and the existence of an adequate remedy at law.
The lien possessed by a vendor who does not execute an absolute conveyance, but retains title under an executory contract of sale, is to be distinguished from the technical vendor's lien or implied lien, wherein the vendor has no security other than the purchaser's personal obligation, for here the vendor holds the legal title as security for deferred payments. Sykes v. Betts, 87 Ala. 537,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Health Science Products, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 94-03938-BGC-11. Adv. No. 94-00294.
...v. Randall, 269 Ala. 420, 113 So.2d 674 (1959); Rogers v. Gonzalez, 252 Ala. 313, 40 So.2d 858 (1949); Qualls v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 242 Ala. 619, 7 So.2d 558 (1942). The vendee may rescind the contract upon relinquishing possession of the same and sue for a return of purchase mone......
-
Wiggins Estate Co. v. Jeffery
... ... v. JEFFERY et al. 3 Div. 405. Supreme Court of Alabama November 16, 1944 ... Mitchell v. Hardie, 84 Ala. 349, ... 4 So. 182, 183; Stuart v. Strickland, 203 Ala ... Christopher v. Chadwick, 223 Ala. 260, 135 So. 454; ... Warren v. Southall, ... Wilson, 224 Ala ... 299, 140 So. 439; Qualls v. Union Central Ins. Co., ... 242 Ala. 619, 7 ... ...
-
Nance v. Bracy
...(Ala. 1959); see also, e.g., Stagg, 390 So. 2d at 622; Rogers v. Gonzalez, 40 So. 2d 858, 860 (Ala. 1949); Qualls v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 7 So. 2d 558, 559 (Ala. 1942); Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Brown, 256 So. 2d 894, 897 (Ala. Civ. App. 1972).39 The vendee (purchaser) under an ......
-
Rhodes v. Schofield
...1/2, supra. To obtain the benefit of that rule it is not necessary that the cross bill pray for the judgment. Qualls v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 242 Ala. 619, 7 So.2d 558. Therefore, a personal judgment should not have been But when a personal judgment is the only error in the decree, i......