Tidmore v. Handy
Decision Date | 28 May 1964 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 575 |
Citation | 277 Ala. 20,166 So.2d 855 |
Parties | Pat TIDMORE v. Sarah HANDY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Hinton & Torbert and Rowan S. Bone, Gadsden, for appellant.
Dortch, Allen & Meighan, Gadsden, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court of Etowah County, in Equity, sustaining demurrer to the amended complaint and dismissing the suit.
The prayer of the bill, in addition to a general prayer for relief, is for a specific performance of an alleged contract or agreement to convey certain described real estate. We quote from the amended complaint the allegations of fact giving rise to the alleged contract or agreement:
We are not certain from the above allegations whether the vesting of fee simple title was to be done by deed or will, but in either aspect the demands of the Statute of Frauds of Alabama, if properly pleaded, must be met.
We held in the case of Vickers v. Pegues et al., 247 Ala. 624, 626, 25 So.2d 720, as follows:
The statute of frauds, Title 20, § 3(5), reads as follows:
'In the following cases, every agreement is void, unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized in writing:
* * *
* * *
'(5) Every contract for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or of any other interest therein, except leases for a term not longer than one year, unless the purchase money, or a portion thereof be paid, and the purchaser be put in possession of the land by the seller.'
See also Shannon v. Wisdom, 171 Ala. 409, 55 So. 102(3).
It is to be noted that subsection (6) of § 3, Title 20, Recompiled Code of 1958 (Act No. 645, Acts of Alabama 1951, Vol. II, p. 1109), did not become effective until September 4, 1951, which was after the date of the alleged agreement or contract here under consideration.
We do not think this provision requiring '[e]very agreement, contract or promise to make a will or to devise or bequeath any real or personal property or right, title or interest therein,' to be in writing would have any effect or bearing on the alleged agreement or contract alleged to have been made in April, 1948.
A ground of demurrer to the amended complaint is as follows: Other grounds of similar import appear.
* * *"Shannon v. Wisdom, 171 Ala. 409, 55 So. 102(5); Bunch v. Garner, 208 Ala. 271, 94 So. 114 (1); Tolleson v. Henson, 207 Ala. 529, 93 So. 458(5); Bullen v. Bullen, 231 Ala. 192, 164 So. 89.
The omission from the bill of complaint of an averment that the contract or agreement was in writing does not within itself clearly demonstrate that the agreement is obnoxious to the statute of frauds. Such an averment is not necessary. We quote from Dexter v. Ohlander, 89 Ala. 262, 7 So. 115(1), as follows:
See also Trammell v. Craddock, 93 Ala. 450, 9 So. 587; Moore v. Whitmire, 189 Ala. 615, 66 So. 601(2).
It is our opinion that it does not clearly and affirmatively appear from the averments in the complaint that the alleged agreement or contract contravenes the statute of frauds; hence the ground of the demurrer raising such contravention is without merit.
Challenge is made by the demurrer that the amended bill of complaint shows on its face that not all necessary parties to the bill are before the court.
While this ground of demurrer is deficient for failure to state the name of the party omitted (Gordon v. Gleason, 267 Ala. 351, 101 So.2d 542(3), we assume arguendo that it refers to Treasure Tidmore, who is made cross-respondent in respondent's cross bill, and who appeared and filed demurrer thereto.
'We held in Craft v. Russell, 67 Ala. 9(7):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Campbell v. Campbell
...that a defense of the statute of frauds must be raised below in the pleadings or by motion or it is considered waived. Tidmore v. Handy, 277 Ala. 20, 166 So.2d 855 (1964); Spruiell v. Stanford, 258 Ala. 212, 61 So.2d 758 (1952). ARCP 8(c). If the contract or agreement is admitted or satisfa......
-
Edwards v. Sentell
...if the purported agreement were made 'prior to the 20th day of August 1951,' subsection (6) would not be applicable. Tidmore v. Handy, 277 Ala. 20, 166 So.2d 855. Much of the evidence is conflicting and we shall not set it out in detail. Appellant presented witnesses who testified that they......
-
Baldwin County Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Chancellor Land Co., Inc.
...Statute of Frauds mandates an affirmance of the summary judgment granted by the trial court. In response, BCSL, citing Tidmore v. Handy, 277 Ala. 20, 166 So.2d 855 (1964) and Spruiell v. Stanford, 258 Ala. 212, 61 So.2d 758 (1952), argues that the appellee waived the Statute of Frauds by fa......
- Turner v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 1 Div. 161