Roberts v. Lindsey
Decision Date | 19 March 1942 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 144. |
Parties | ROBERTS et al. v. LINDSEY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 9, 1942.
Perdue & Miller, of Moulton, for appellants.
S.A Lynne, of Decatur, for appellee.
Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, in equity, overruling demurrers to a bill of complaint seeking to establish and foreclose a lien on a filling station building.
The bill alleges, in substance, that on March 13 1935, the appellee, complainant in the court below, entered into a written contract whereby appellants, respondents in the court below leased to appellee a certain lot or parcel of land described in the bill, for a term of five years commencing on March 13, 1935: that in and by the lease contract it was agreed that appellee should erect a filling station building on the lot, and that appellants would pay the cost of erection: that title to the building should vest in the appellants at the expiration of the lease contract, subject to the payment of the cost and expenses of its erection, and for which payment appellee was to have a lien. The bill alleges that the building was erected by appellee in pursuance of and in compliance with the contract, at a cost of five hundred dollars; that the lease has expired, and that although repeated demands have been made for the payment of the cost of erection of the filling station building, the same remains unpaid.
The bill prayed that the court determine the amount due appellee for the erection of the building; that the court fix, fasten and confirm the lien on said filling station building for the amount ascertained to be due appellee by appellants, and that the building be ordered sold for the purpose of paying off and satisfying the lien, and for general relief,--a copy of the lease contract was attached to and made a part of the bill of complaint.
The demurrers to the bill take the points that (1) there is no equity in the bill; (2) that the contract is void for uncertainty; and (3) that the contract is void for want of consideration.
The pertinent provisions of the contract are as follows: "Now party of second part J.R. Lindsey hereby agrees to erect a filling station building on the above described property, and parties of first part agrees that party of second part is to hold a lien on the building for any indebtedness or cost of erection of the building till paid in full at the expiration of the lease the building is to go to party of first part."
The equity of appellees' bill rests upon the averment of facts to establish an equitable lien and its prayer to enforce it.
In the case of Greil Brothers Co. v. City of Montgomery, 182 Ala. 291, 62 So. 692, 695, Ann.Cas.1915D, 738, this Court said: " * * *
And quoting from Manchuria S.S. Co. v. Harry G.G. Donald & Co., 200 Ala. 638 (head note 5), 77 So. 12, 15, See, also, Harden et al. v. Wood Lumber Co., 235 Ala. 310, 313, 178 So. 540.
Such a lien as herein appears is regarded as in the nature of an equitable mortgage. City of Eufaula v. Alabama Power Co., 233 Ala. 257, 171 So. 368.
While the contract is not couched in the language of an experienced hand, since it has been performed on the part...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southland Bank v. A & a Drywall Supply
...has done something he was not bound to do, or has promised to do some act or to abstain from doing something." "`Roberts v. Lindsey, 242 Ala. 522, 525, 7 So.2d 82, 84 (1942); Russell v. Russell, 270 Ala. 662, 668, 120 So.2d 733, 738 (1960). "[T]o constitute consideration for a promise, ther......
-
Armstrong Business Services, Inc. v. AmSouth Bank
...he has done something he was not bound to do, or has promised to do some act or to abstain from doing something.' "Roberts v. Lindsey, 242 Ala. 522, 525, 7 So.2d 82, 84 (1942); Russell v. Russell, 270 Ala. 662, 668, 120 So.2d 733, 738 (1960). `[T]o constitute consideration for a promise, th......
-
Russell v. Russell
...statement of the law, then there could be no equitable mortgage in the instant case. But our cases hold otherwise. In Roberts v. Lindsey, 242 Ala. 522, 7 So.2d 82, this court held that a contract which provided that if the builder would erect a filling station on the owner's land, the build......
-
Alabama Butane Gas Co. v. Tarrant Land Co.
...243 Ala. 154, 8 So.2d 819; Leader v. Romano, 208 Ala. 635, 95 So. 7; Catanzano v. Hydinger, 233 Ala. 116, 170 So. 214; Roberts v. Lindsey, 242 Ala. 522, 7 So.2d 82. It further established that having duly taken jurisdiction the court retains it for all purposes to determine all rights, to r......