Stone v. Burgeson
| Decision Date | 17 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 503 |
| Parties | STONE v. BURGESON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; W.M. Walker, Judge.
Bill in equity by O.L. Stone against Carl Burgeson. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Lipscomb & Lipscomb, of Bessemer, and T.J. Lamar and W.A. Weaver, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Morris Loveman, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The rights of the parties to an agreement such as the one set out in this bill of complaint, and the mode and extent of its enforcement by a court of law or equity, have been fully discussed and determined by this court. Bolman v Overall, 80 Ala. 451, 455, 2 So. 624, 60 Am.Rep. 107; Manning v. Pippen, 86 Ala. 357, 5 So. 572, 11 Am.St.Rep. 46; Walker v. Yarbrough, 200 Ala. 458, 76 So. 390; Mayfield v. Cook, 201 Ala. 187, 77 So. 713; Poe v. Kemp, 206 Ala. 228, 89 So. 716; Taylor v Cathey, 211 Ala. 589, 100 So. 834.
These cases hold that a valid contract by a promisor to dispose of his property by will to a particular person may be enforced in the courts, after his decease, by an action for its breach against the personal representative or, in a proper case, by bill in the nature of specific performance against his heirs, devisees, or personal representatives.
These cases also hold that, in case of the breach of such a contract during his lifetime by the party who agreed to make the will, the remedy is not in equity by bill for specific performance, or for relief in the nature of specific performance, but only by an action at law for damages. Poe v Kemp, supra; Bolman v. Overall, supra; Manning v. Pippen, supra. Indeed, in the two last cited cases the court was apparently of the opinion that there could be no actionable breach of an agreement to make a will until after the death of the promisor without performance.
But however that may be, this bill, filed against the living promisor, is without equity, and the demurrer was properly sustained. The want of equity in the primary purpose of the bill is not supplied by the mere allegation that the items of account between the parties are complicated, so as to authorize a retention of the bill as one for an accounting. Pollak v. Claflin, 138 Ala. 644, 35 So. 645, 647; Knotts v. Tarver, 8 Ala. 743; Beggs v. Edison, etc., Co., 96 Ala. 295, 11 So. 381, 38 Am.St.Rep. 94; State v. Bradshaw, 60 Ala. 240. The specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam
...supra, 80 Ala. at page 455, 2 So. 624, 69 Am.Rep. 107; Taylor v. Cathey, supra; Poe v. Kemp, supra; Richards v. Williams, supra; Stone v. Burgeson, supra, and account for services rendered on a quantum meruit. 68 Corpus Juris 590, section 208, notes 30 and 32; 5 Corpus Juris 1386, Section 1......
-
Martin v. Martin
...of specific performance, but such cases do not apply here. See also Fitzpatrick v. Michael, 177 Md. 248, 9 A.2d 639; Stone v. Burgeson, 215 Ala. 23, 109 So. 155; Watson v. Hubson, 401 Ill. 191, 81 N.E.2d 885, 7 A.L.R.2d 1156; Nunn v. Boal, 29 Ohio App. 141, 162 N.E. 724; O'Brien v. O'Brien,......
-
Hyatt v. International Agr. Corporation
...them Price v. Hall, 226 Ala. 372, 147 So. 156; Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 222 Ala. 210, 131 So. 634; Stone v. Burgeson, 215 Ala. 23, 109 So. 155; Beggs v. Edison Elec. Illum. Co., 96 Ala. 295, So. 381, 38 Am.St.Rep. 94; Walthall v. Anderson, 215 Ala. 264, 110 So. 299), but......
-
Stone v. Lacy
...of 1940, Tit. 47, § 66." Stone v. Lacy, 242 Ala. 393, 6 So.2d 481, 483. When appellee purchased the property in 1928, the suit of Stone v. Burgeson, supra, terminated. This court in Batson v. Etheridge, 239 Ala. 535, 195 So. 873, made it clear that the statute applies only when the purchase......