Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 August 1985 |
Citation | 475 So.2d 539 |
Parties | Thomas W. TURNER, Jr. v. SYSTEMS FUEL, INC. 84-88. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Marc E. Bradley of Bradley & Montgomery, Fairhope, for appellant.
Edward B. McDonough, Jr. of McDonough & Broome, Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a breach of contract case. We reverse.
Plaintiff/appellee Systems Fuel, Inc. entered into a written contract with Thomas W. Turner whereby Systems Fuel was to drill a well, known as the Bertha Donaldson well, in Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi, for the purpose of searching for oil. Under the terms of the contract, Turner, along with several other investors, was to pay a proportionate share of the drilling costs. The contract also provided as follows:
Article VI.E.1, referred to above, provided as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
On September 21, 1983, Systems Fuel filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, alleging the existence of the contract between it and Turner, that it had "duly performed all the terms and conditions" of the contract, but that Turner had failed to pay his proportionate share of the costs incurred, $12,473.01. Turner answered, and Systems Fuel moved for summary judgment, supported by a copy of the contract and the affidavit of Joseph O. Meade, the manager of drilling and production for Systems Fuel. The affidavit again averred the existence of the contract, that Systems Fuel had "duly performed all the terms and conditions" of that contract, that Turner had failed to pay the $12,473.01 he owed under the contract, and that Turner was liable to Systems Fuel for payment of that amount, plus interest at the agreed upon rate, 10% per annum, and reasonable attorney's fees.
In opposition to Systems Fuel's motion, Turner submitted the following affidavit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tidmore v. Citizens Bank & Trust
...was properly entered, the reviewing court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc., 475 So.2d 539, 541 (Ala. 1985) ; Ryan v. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc., 409 So.2d 784 (Ala. 1981). Rule 56 is read in conjunction with the 'substantia......
-
Franklin v. City of Huntsville
...was properly entered, the reviewing court must view the motion in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc., 475 So.2d 539, 541 (Ala.1985); Ryan v. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc., 409 So.2d 784 (Ala.1981). Rule 56 is read in conjunction with the "substantial evi......
-
Griffin v. Summit Specialties, Inc.
...was properly entered, the reviewing court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc, 475 So.2d 539, 541 (Ala.1985); Ryan v. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc., 409 So.2d 784 (Ala.1981). Rule 56 is read in conjunction with the "substantial ev......
-
Rodgers v. Adams
... ... See Turner ... v. Systems Fuel, Inc., 475 So.2d 539, 541 (Ala.1985); Ryan v ... ...