Speakman v. Burleson

• Decision Date: 30 June 1899
• Parties: SPEAKMAN v. BURLESON ET UX. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

27 So. 322

123 Ala. 678

SPEAKMAN v. BURLESON ET UX. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1899

Appeal from chancery court, Morgan county; John C. Eyster Chancellor.

Bill by W. I. Speakman against D. A. Burleson and wife. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff on a register's report defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Arthur L. Brown, for appellants.

E. W Godbey, for appellee.

McCLELLAN C.J.

Speakman is complainant in this bill against Burleson and wife. He alleges that he purchased, October 26, 1891, a tract of land from Burleson for $800, $200 of which was paid at the time and $600 was to be paid in six equal annual installments thereafter, and for the deferred payments he executed six promissory notes. Burleson and wife executed to him a bond for title on full payment of purchase money. He avers further that he has paid all of said purchase money, but that, as there was dispute as to this, he tendered Burleson $97.85 in May, 1896, as certainly covering any balance that might be due, and at the same time presented to him a proper deed for execution by himself and wife; that Burleson then asserted that the tender was insufficient, and declined it, and refused to execute conveyance, claiming that there was a balance of between $300 and $400 unpaid. Thereupon Speakman filed this bill, alleging said tender and its sufficiency and attempting to allege that it had been kept good, offering to pay any balance that might be found due, and praying a specific performance of the contract to convey, etc. Burleson and wife answered the bill, denying that the purchase money had been paid in full, that the alleged tender was sufficient in amount, or had been kept good, and alleging that there was a balance of $500 due on the purchase-money account, etc.; and they made their answer a cross bill, and alleged they, or D. A. Burleson, had a vendor's lien on the land for such balance, and prayed that the land be sold for its satisfaction, etc. The bill was several times amended, and so were the answer and cross bill; and upon averments of Speakman's insolvency and the inadequacy of the security there were efforts on the part of Burleson to get possession of the land, petition for injunction on the part of Speakman, which was granted, the injunction issued, and afterwards dissolved, and petition for receiver on part of Burleson, which was also granted, and a receiver appointed, but it does not appear what he did, or that he did anything. By averments upon one side and the other another transaction between Speakman and Burleson was brought into the case. This was a lease by Speakman from Burleson, of even date with the sale in question, of another tract of land, for the term of five years. This lease stipulated for a rental of $100 for each of the first three years and $125 for each of the last two; for sundry improvements to be made by Speakman, mostly at his own expense, but some at the cost of Burleson; for his clearing certain of the leased land, for which he was to be allowed four dollars per acre, and for his leaving the place at the end of the lease in a state of good repair, etc.; and among the issues in the case were several growing out of these covenants and claims for damages for their alleged breach, and Speakman claimed that he had been misled by Burleson as to the amount of tillable land in the tract, and sought to recoup damages therefor, etc. It was also brought out by the pleadings that Speakman carried on a mercantile business while both these land transactions were in fieri and pending, so to speak; that he sold groceries to Burleson throughout several of the years, the price of which was to go indifferently upon the rent he owned for one place and the purchase money he owed for the other; and he also claims to have made a good many cash payments on the...