Tyson v. Chestnut

• Decision Date: 27 July 1893
• Citation: 13 So. 763,100 Ala. 571
• Parties: TYSON v. CHESTNUT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 763

100 Ala. 571

TYSON v. CHESTNUT.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 27, 1893

Appeal from chancery court, Lowndes county; John A. Foster Chancellor.

Suit by M. M. Tyson against J. C. Chestnut for injunction and reformation of a contract of leasing. The bill was dismissed and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

J. C Richardson, for appellant.

Gamble & Powell, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

J. C Chestnut sued the complainant, Tyson, in a court of law, to recover damages for the breach of a contract of leasing for a term of four years. The lessor, "Tyson, guarantied to said Chestnut the peaceable and legal possession of the place above mentioned for the time specified," (which was four years,) and it is for an alleged breach of this covenant that the said Chestnut sued. The complainant, Tyson, filed the present bill, praying for an injunction, and the reformation of the contract of lease. The averment of the bill is that, when "said lease and contract was made it was the express intention, contract, and understanding that the lease should be subject to the redemption of Ewing, Dickson, and others, and should not be in force or binding after such redemption; that the lease should continue in force during the four years, provided said lands were not redeemed. Then and in that event, and from that time, the lease should be inoperative, and the unpaid rent should not be collectible; that the scrivener who drew the notes and lease omitted to insert or make a part of such lease the said provision," etc. The respondent, Chestnut, answered the bill, denying the material allegations as to any omission from the contract of lease, and averred that it was in accordance with the lease contract, as made, and that he required of the lessor the guaranty before he would rent the land for four years. The cause was submitted on the evidence, and the chancery court refused the complainant relief, and dismissed the bill.

We have no doubt of the correctness of the conclusion reached by the chancery court. It is very clear from the evidence of the respondent, and also of the scrivener,-who was the son-in-law, and for drawing the lease, and negotiating the terms of the lease, the agent, of the lessor,-that the guaranty was inserted intentionally. The parties differ materially as to the purpose and effect intended by the insertion and making a part of the lease the guaranty for "peaceable and legal possession." The evidence...