Wade v. Pridmore
| Decision Date | 23 June 1978 |
| Parties | Robert T. WADE et al. v. Richard PRIDMORE. 77-187. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. Eugene Rutledge, of Rutledge, Williams, Williams & Norton, Anniston, for appellants.
Charles A. McGee, of Traylor & McGee, Fort Payne, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a default judgment entered by the court, when Wade's counsel, unsuccessful in obtaining a continuance, did not appear for trial as scheduled. We affirm.
Pridmore filed a complaint in the Circuit Court on October 8, 1975, seeking dissolution of Mountain Auto Parts, Inc., and distribution of its assets, not claimed by creditors, to him. Pridmore alleged in his complaint that he was the beneficial owner of all of the shares of stock of the corporation, and owned legal title to 51% Of the shares. Wade was to own legal title to 48% Of the stock. Lee Clyde Traylor was to own legal title to 1% Of the stock. The complaint alleged that Wade was to operate the business of the corporation at a salary of $150.00 per week, and if, at the end of 7 years from the date of incorporation, the arrangement proved profitable, the corporation existed for 7 years, and Wade was still with the business, he was to get 50% Of the beneficial or equitable interest of the corporation. The receipt of 50% Of the beneficial interest was conditioned on Wade's efficient operation of the business and his being with the corporation at the end of the 7 years period. If he operated the business in a negligent or wasteful manner, or, if he voluntarily ended his services with the corporation, Pridmore would continue to own 100% Of the beneficial interest.
Pridmore alleged that Wade negligently operated the business, and it was necessary to fire him. (The complaint is silent as to when Wade was fired.)
Wade's answer admitted the corporation, denied the agreement as alleged, counterclaimed for 48% Interest in the corporation, prayed for an accounting, punitive damages for breach of Pridmore's fiduciary obligations, and demanded a jury trial.
Subsequently, Wade moved for a summary judgment on the pleadings, without any supporting evidence, bottomed on the theory that the alleged agreement of stock ownership was oral, and therefore, violated the statute of frauds. The court denied the motion, struck the jury demand as to the issues of ownership of stock, dissolution and accounting, and granted a jury trial as to breach of fiduciary obligation.
On Pridmore's motion, trial was set for May 10, 1977. On May 10, Wade's counsel had to appear in this court; consequently, trial was reset for July 25. The case was continued again, on Pridmore's motion, to October 11. The case was reset for October 25, because Wade's counsel had laryngitis, and again was appearing in this court. On October 24-25, Wade's counsel was engaged in trial in a federal court. During the afternoon of October 24, the trial judge was advised of another requested continuance by Wade's counsel. The judge refused to grant a continuance without the consent of Pridmore's counsel. He withheld consent.
On October 25 the court held a hearing, attended only by Pridmore's counsel, on Pridmore's motion for default judgment. Counsel stated in open cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKenzie v. Killian
...added)). See also Woodham v. New York Times Broad. Serv., Inc., 526 So.2d 5, 5 (Ala.1988) ("`The rationale behind the Wade [v. Pridmore, 361 So.2d 511 (Ala.1978)] decision and the general rules regarding the necessity for post-trial motions is that, ordinarily, issues not raised before the ......
-
Lee v. Martin
...of the trial court, and this Court will not overturn the trial court's action unless there is an abuse of discretion. Wade v. Pridmore, 361 So.2d 511 (Ala.1978). By its terms, Rule 60(b)(1) has some time "(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. ......
-
Bush v. James T. Johnson and Co.
...the sound discretion of the trial court, and will be overturned by an appellate court only for an abuse of that discretion. Wade v. Pridmore, 361 So.2d 511 (Ala.1978). The trial judge in this case was from another county, sitting specially in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. He refuse......
-
Agio Industries, Inc. v. Delta Oil Co., Inc.
...v. Roberts, 423 So.2d 208 (Ala.1982). Such a denial may be reversed only if the trial court has abused its discretion. Wade v. Pridmore, 361 So.2d 511 (Ala.1978). However, because court policy favors the determination of cases on their merits, default judgments are not favored. Cockrell v. ......