Terrell v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 30 May 1912 |
| Citation | 58 So. 989,177 Ala. 596 |
| Parties | TERRELL v. NELSON ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge.
Action by A. J. Terrell against Frank Nelson, Jr., and Leo K Steiner, for breach of contract. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The first count charges a contract alleged to have been made by defendants with plaintiff, by which the defendants, for value received, promised to purchase and receive from plaintiff, at $1 per cubic yard, all the stone that might be necessary to complete the construction of lock 3 on the Tombigbee river to wit, 20,000 cubic yards, said stone to be delivered by plaintiff on defendants' barges on the Warrior river, in Tuscaloosa county, Ala.; and plaintiff avers that defendants breached said contract in this: That, before plaintiff was ready to begin the delivery of such stone, defendants notified plaintiff that they would not receive same, and plaintiff thereby lost the profit which he had expected to make, and might have made, in furnishing same, and sustained other damages. The second count alleges the contract of same as count 1, but alleges the breach as follows: "That defendants failed and refused to receive or purchase said stone, or any part thereof, to plaintiff's damage as aforesaid, including the profits he might have made." The third count alleges the contract to be that the defendants promised to purchase and receive from plaintiff at $1 per cubic yard, all the stone for work upon lock 3 on the Tombigbee river that could be quarried and loaded on defendants' barges in time for transportation during the boating season on said river of the spring and summer of 1910, the quantity thereof not to be less than 8,000 cubic yards, and not more than 10,000 cubic yards, the stone to be delivered by plaintiff on defendants' barges on Warrior river in Tuscaloosa county, Ala.; and plaintiff avers that said defendants breached said contract in this: That, before plaintiff was ready to begin delivering said stone defendants notified plaintiff they would not receive same, and declined to comply with said contract, and plaintiff thereby lost the profits, etc. The fourth count alleges the contract as in count 3, with an additional contract that 10,000 cubic yards of stone should be quarried and piled on the bank of said river, to be delivered on defendants' barges during the succeeding boating season in 1911, making a total of 20,000 cubic yards to be delivered, but that, before plaintiff was ready to deliver same, defendants canceled their contract, whereby plaintiff lost profits, etc. The demurrers take the points discussed in the opinion.
George Huddleston, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Z. T. Rudolph, of Birmingham, for appellees.
It has been repeatedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Littleton
...of the rule is in line with the conclusion announced in McGowin Co. v. Camp Lumber Co., 192 Ala. 39, 40, 68 So. 263. In Terrell v. Nelson, 177 Ala. 596, 58 So. 989, the breach of a contract to purchase stone at $1 per cubic yard was declared upon, it was pointed out that the failure of the ......
-
Lauderdale Power Co. v. Perry
... ... 841; ... Lowy v. Rosengrant, 196 Ala. 337, 71 So. 439, 442, ... 443; Lysle Milling Co. v. North Ala. Grocery Co., 77 ... So. 748; Terrell v. Nelson, 177 Ala. 596, 58 So ... 989. It has been held, of the time of payment and of the ... doing of the required acts, under the contract ... ...
-
Mobile Electric Co. v. Nelson
...Ala. Gro. Co., 201 Ala. 222, 223, 77 So. 748; Dowling-Martin Gro. Co. v. J. C. Lysle Mill. Co., 203 Ala. 491, 83 So. 486; Terrell v. Nelson, 177 Ala. 596, 58 So. 989; Terrell v. Nelson, 199 Ala. 436, 74 So. 929, Elliott v. Howison, 146 Ala. 568, 583, 40 So. 1018; McAllister-Coman Co. v. Mat......
-
Nunnally Co. v. Bromberg & Co.
... ... would not constitute a breach of the contract. Johnson v ... Moxley, 216 Ala. 466, 113 So. 656; Terrell v. Nelson ... et al., 177 Ala. 596, 58 So. 989 ... Rules ... of good pleading do not require that in pleading contracts ... that they ... ...