Saliba v. Lunsford
| Decision Date | 30 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 964 |
| Citation | 268 Ala. 307,106 So.2d 176 |
| Parties | J. E. SALIBA, d/b/a Dothan Roofing & Heating Company, v. Wanda LUNSFORD et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
H. K. & J. F. Martin, Dothan, for appellant.
J. Hubert Farmer, Dothan, for appellees.
J. E. Saliba, doing business as Dothan Roofing & Heating Company, filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Houston County, in Equity, against Wanda Lunsford and Dothan Federal Savings & Loan Association, a corporation, seeking to establish the statutory lien given by § 37, Title 33, Code 1940, and also seeking a sale of the property in satisfaction of the lien.
It appears from the bill and exhibits thereto that the lien was sought to secure an
In her answer Wanda Lunsford admits that complainant 'furnished certain labor and materials for the installation of a forced warm air heating system, in the dwelling house located on the lot as described in said bill,' but she avers that she is not indebted to complainant for the reason that the heating system does not heat the house in a satisfactory manner, although complainant represented and guaranteed that it would do so.
The averments of the answer of Dothan Federal Savings & Loan Association, which held a recorded mortgage on the Lunsford property at the time the heating system was installed, need not be summarized.
The trial court, from evidence taken before a commissioner, found that complainant had executed and delivered to Wanda Lunsford a warranty of 'satisfactory service' in pertinent part as follows: '* * * We guarantee the Heating System just installed in your home to give heat satisfactorily * * *' and the court further found from the evidence the 'the heating service furnished by the said heating system installed by the plaintiff in the residence of the defendant, Wanda Lunsford, was unsatisfactory to the defendant, Wanda Lunsford, and that it was inadequate, and the said testimony further showing to the court ample and substantial grounds or basis for the dissatisfaction of defendant, Wanda Lunsford, with the service she received from the aforesaid heating system.' Based on such findings the trial court decreed 'that the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this case,' but gave to the complainant the right to remove the heating system from the Wanda Lunsford residence within thirty days from April 16, 1958, the date of the final decree. It was further provided in the decree that if the complainant failed to remove the said heating system within the time allowed for that purpose that Wanda Lunsford could do so. From the decree of April 16, 1958, the complainant appealed to this court.
The assignment of error challenging the action of the trial court in sustaining demurrers to the original bill is not argued and hence will not be considered. Rickman v. Rickman, 266 Ala. 371, 96 So.2d 674; Epperson v. Stacey, 266 Ala. 396, 96 So.2d 750.
The only assignment of error directed to the decree from which the appeal is taken is to the effect that the trial court erred in that decree in denying relief to the complainant and in failing to grant relief to him. Although in general terms, this assignment of error is sufficient to present for our review the matters argued by the appellant, the complainant below. See Murphy v. Pickle, 264 Ala. 362, 87 So.2d 844.
Appellant does not deny that he warranted the heating system to give satisfactory service and we understand him to concede that a substantial breach of that warranty could be set up by Wanda Lunsford to defeat his claim. See Roobin v. Grindle, 219 Ala. 417, 122 So. 408; Becker Roofing Co. v. Little, 229 Ala. 317, 156 So. 842; Farmer v. Johns-McBride Engineering Service, 256 Ala. 335, 54 So.2d 708; Miles v. Moore, 262 Ala. 441, 79...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. West Virginia Truck Stops, Inc. v. McHugh
...Johnson v. Metcalfe, 209 Md. 537, 121 A.2d 825 (1956); K-V Builders, Inc. v. Thomas, 353 S.W.2d 130 (Mo.App.1962); Saliba v. Lunsford, 268 Ala. 307, 106 So.2d 176 (1958); Easthampton Lumber & Coal Co. v. Worthington, 186 N.Y. 407, 79 N.E. 323 (1906); and, 53 Am.Jur.2d, Mechanics' Lien, § In......
-
Holley v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.
...194 Ala. 126, 69 So. 604; W.U.T. Co. v. Benson, 159 Ala. 254, 48 So. 712.' (212 Ala. at 12, 101 So. at 646) In Saliba v. Lunsford, 268 Ala. 307, 309, 106 So.2d 176, 177, this court 'The assignment of error challenging the action of the trial court in sustaining demurrers to the original bil......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...his findings from the evidence. We must sit in judgment on the evidence. Henslee v. Merritt, 263 Ala. 266, 82 So.2d 212; Saliba v. Lunsford, 268 Ala. 307, 106 So.2d 176. The Cosby-Hodges Milling Company owned an automobile which it turned over to their employee, Wayne W. Faulkner, who had t......
-
Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 6 Div. 594
...as to the findings of fact, but must sit in judgment on the evidence. Loveman v. Lay, 271 Ala. 385, 124 So.2d 93; Saliba v. Lunsford et al., 268 Ala. 307, 106 So.2d 176. The decree of the trial court is The foregoing opinion was prepared by Bowen W. Simmons, Supernumerary Circuit Judge, and......