Syllacauga Land Co. v. Hendrix

• Decision Date: 17 May 1894
• Parties: SYLLACAUGA LAND CO. v. HENDRIX.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

15 So. 594

103 Ala. 254

SYLLACAUGA LAND CO. v. HENDRIX.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 17, 1894

Appeal from chancery court, Talladega county; S. K. McSpadden. Chancellor.

Action by J. M. Hendrix against the Syllacauga Land Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

On December 3, 1892, the appellee, J. M. Hendrix, filed his bill against the appellant, the Syllacauga Land Company, to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a certain lot in the town of Syllacauga, in Talladega county, Ala. The bill avers that on April 9, 1892, the complainant purchased a lot from the Marble City Land &amp Furnace Company for $500, one-third of the purchase money to be paid in cash, and the balance payable in equal installments of one and two years; that he paid the cash payment, and executed his promissory notes for each of the others; and that thereupon there was given to him a bond for title evidencing the contract of sale, which instrument is copied in the opinion. It was also averred that, upon the maturity of the first of said notes, he was ready and willing to pay the same upon the compliance by the said Marble City Land & Furnace Company of the agreements and conditions contained in said bond for title, but that said company wholly failed to keep this agreement, and did not comply with the stipulations and requirements of said contract, and also refused, upon demand, to execute to the complainant a deed to the lot in question. The bill also averred that, since the execution of said contract, the Marble City Land & Furnace Company had changed its name to that of the Syllacauga Land Company. The prayer of the bill was that, upon the final hearing, the chancellor should cancel both of the notes given for the deferred payments, and divest the title to the said lot in question out of the Syllacauga Land Company, and invest it in the complainant. The respondent demurred to the bill, assigning several grounds, among which were the following: (1) That the bill contained no equity; (2) that it does not show that the defendant authorized the execution of the said contract; (3) that the stipulation to erect certain manufactories and industrial establishments, etc., or to cause the same to be erected, is not supported by any consideration, and is invalid; (4) that it is not averred that there were any false representations made to the complainant, and no contract is shown on the part of the defendant to convey the lot to the complainant upon the payment of the first installment of the purchase money; (5) that the bill shows that the complainant has not paid the purchase money in full, and contains no offer to pay the same, and shows no state of facts that entitles the complainant to the specific performance of the contract as prayed for.

C. C Whitson, for appellant.

Otts &amp Dixon and Cecil Browne, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

In the view we take of this case, but little need be said in disposing of it. To our minds the sole question in it has reference to the intention of the parties, to be gathered from the terms of the bond for title which the land company executed, and which the complainant below accepted. It is as follows: "State of Alabama, Talladega County. Know all men by these presents, that the Marble City Land and Furnace Company, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Alabama, is held and firmly bound unto J. M. Hendrix in the sum of one thousand dollars. The condition of the above obligation is such that, whereas, for the consideration of $166 66/100 dollars this day paid the said Marble City Land and Furnace Company by the said J. M. Hendrix, and the further sum of $333 35/100 dollars, to be paid to the Marble City Land and Furnace Co., by the said J. M. Hendrix, payable...