Ridley v. Moyer
| Decision Date | 09 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 603 |
| Citation | Ridley v. Moyer, 230 Ala. 517, 161 So. 526 (Ala. 1935) |
| Parties | RIDLEY et al. v. MOYER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1935.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; J. Fred Johnson, Jr. Judge.
Suit in equity by S.G. Moyer against Luke Ridley and Lula Ridley.From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondents appeal.
Affirmed.
Kirk & Rather, of Tuscumbia, for appellants.
J.H Nathan, of Sheffield, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree overruling demurrers to the amended bill.
It is averred, that on February 27, 1924, appellee purchased from appellants a tract of land consisting of 15 acres of land, to be subdivided into streets and lots.On the 6th day of March 1924, the deed and mortgage exhibited were executed.The latter recited an indebtedness of $5,315.70, evidenced by three promissory notes as follows: One for $315.70, due July 6, 1924; one for $2,500, payable March 6, 1925; and the third for $2,500, payable on or before March 6, 1926, each note bearing interest from date, payable annually.It was stipulated in the mortgage securing same, that if the amounts due upon said notes "when the same respectively fall due" are paid, "then this conveyance is to become void, but on *** failure to pay said notes or either of them as stipulated therein, in part or in full," or failure to "keep all taxes against said real estate paid, then or in either event above enumerated all of the indebtedness evidenced by this mortgage and still unpaid shall immediately mature and become due"; that "it is expressly understood and agreed that a strip Two Hundred and Ten (210) feet wide off the west side of said real estate shall be released at the rate of Seventy-five ($75.00) Dollars per lot according to the map and plan of said real estate."
It is averted that prior to the execution of the deed and mortgage negotiations were had between complainant and defendants for subdivision of the land into lots and blocks with streets and alleys, and thus enable complainant to offer the property for sale and in turn pay the balance of the purchase money for said tract; that for that purpose and with that end in view, defendants agreed as a part of the contract for the sale and purchase that a strip of said land 210 feet wide off the west side of said parcel, estimated to be 1,100 feet in length, be released from the mortgage to be executed by complainant upon payment to defendants of the sum of $75 per lot, said lots to be 50 feet wide and 145 feet in depth, and to be platted by complainant with a 50-foot street along the west, north, and south borders of said parcel, a 50-foot street dividing said 1,100-foot strip, and a 15-foot alley or driveway along the east border of said 1,100-foot strip, leaving 19 lots which were to be released by defendants from the mortgage to be executed by complainant upon payment of $75 per lot.
It is further averred that for the benefit of complainant and without affecting or intending to affect his rights to have these lots released from defendants' mortgage, according to the agreement between complainant and defendants, complainant platted the lots as Fordson Park Terrace, each having a frontage of 35 feet and a depth of 100 feet; that complainant, on July, 1924, paid $315.70, with interest, and on March 2, 1926, he paid $1,900, at which time he demanded from defendants release of all the lots contained in the 210-foot strip off the west side of said parcel of land, which demand was refused as to any of said lots or any part of the 210-foot strip.
It is further averred that subsequent to the execution of this contract and mortgage, and the payment of said sums of money, complainant sold a number of the lots in the 210-foot strip and executed and delivered warranty deeds to the same, relying on the contract with the defendants that said lots so sold would be released from the mortgage; that on September 3, 1928, defendants foreclosed the mortgage and bid in the property, and on December 4, 1928, defendants"attempted to vacate the recorded plat of Fordson Park Terrace," etc.
The prayer was for the release of the lots in question from the mortgage, and for such general relief as complainant's "rights and equities may justify."
The amended bill sets forth the agreement of the parties for subdivision and release of the lots as follows:
As to this agreement, it is averred:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Hetzler v. Millard
... ... additions. Smith v. Heath, 102 Ill. 130; Boone ... v. Clark, 129 Ill. 466, 21 N.E. 850; Ridley v ... Mayer, 230 Ala. 517, 161 So. 526; Gertsley v. Globe ... Wernecke Co., 340 Ill. 270, 172 N.E. 829; Greisinger ... v. Klinhardt, 321 Mo ... ...
-
Knight v. McCain
...Donisthorpe v. Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad Company, 30 Neb. 142, 46 N.W. 240, 27 Am.St.Rep. 387. Ridley, et al. v. Moyer, 230 Ala. 517, 161 So. 526, 528 (1935). In our analysis of this question this Court considers this issue in two stages: (1) the exception of collateral ag......
-
In re Llc.
...found in antecedent contract was independent and collateral and therefore did not merge into deed) (quoting Ridley v. Moyer, 230 Ala. 517, 520, 161 So. 526, 528 (1935)); see also Brogden v. Durkee, 16 So.3d 113 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (holding that time of performance clause of antecedent contra......
-
Lindsey v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. of Detroit
... ... v. Barnes et al., 229 Ala ... 572, 159 So. 63; First Nat. Bank of Eutaw v. Barnes et ... al. 229 Ala. 612, 159 So. 68; and Ridley et al. v ... Moyer (Ala.Sup.) 161 So. 526, as to multifariousness ... In a ... suit against a corporation it was held proper to join ... ...