White v. White
Decision Date | 29 April 1983 |
Citation | 431 So.2d 1208 |
Parties | Bernard WHITE v. Everett WHITE. Bernard WHITE v. Steve WHITE. 81-653, 81-654. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
C. Lenoir Thompson, Bay Minette, and Gary A. Moore, Fairhope, for appellant.
L.D. Owen, III, Bay Minette, for appellees.
Bernard White filed these actions for damages for wrongful interference with the performance of a contract for construction of a fire protection water system for his real and personal property.The trial court granted summary judgments for defendants.
Bernard White is the owner of certain real estate in the community of Perdido, Alabama, which he leased to the Perdido Volunteer Fire Department on a year to year basis, prior to the actions which gave rise to the lawsuits below.From the amended complaint and the affidavits of James C. Eddins it appears that some members of the Perdido Volunteer Fire Department, including Everett White and Steve White, defendants, verbally assured Bernard White that should his house and family be threatened by fire, they would not intervene and would not allow the Perdido Volunteer Fire Department to come to his aid.
In 1979, Perdido Vineyards, Inc., contracted with the Perdido Volunteer Fire Department, which was on the north side of Baldwin County Road Number 47 across from Perdido Vineyards, for a temporary water supply from the fire department's well.Perdido Vineyards installed a water main extending from the well to the north right of way, where a fire plug was installed, and then south under the highway to Perdido Vineyards' property.Perdido Vineyards paid for this installation and used water from the fire department until water from its own well became potable.
After the alleged threats by the defendants to "watch Bernard White's house burn,"Bernard White and Perdido Vineyards entered into an agreement whereby Bernard White would be provided water from the vineyard's water supply.Bernard White was to connect a line to the water main previously installed by Perdido Vineyards at a point on the county right of way between the fire department's leased property and the north edge of the highway.The line was to run along the right of way to Bernard White's personal residence, adjoining the fire department property.
Bernard White had James C. Eddins, the president of Perdido Vineyards and a registered engineer, prepare plans for this line from the vineyard's water main to his house.White obtained a permit from the Baldwin County Highway Department to construct the line.He then contracted with John Barac, doing business as Barac Construction, to install his fire protection system under the direction of Eddins.When Barac and Eddins began the work on July 8, 1981, Everett White and Steve White, according to Eddin's affidavit, "rushed to the construction site and began to threaten and interfere with the contractor, Mr. John Barac, and the engineer, James C. Eddins, in the peaceful conduct of their business," whereupon Barac and Eddins stopped the project.
Appellant White argues the case on a theory of tortious interference with performance of a contract, citing Alcazar Amusement Co. v. Mudd &...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Berkel and Co. Contractors, Inc. v. Providence Hosp.
...402 So.2d at 951. The non-movant need only establish a scintilla of supporting evidence to avoid summary judgment. White v. White, 431 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Ala.1983). III. SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS ON APPEAL A. Count One--Breach of Duty in Directing the Pile Installation. Berkel contends in count one......
-
Alabama Citizens Action Program v. Kennamer
...is a disputed material fact, even a scintilla of evidence supporting the nonmoving party will preclude summary judgment. White v. White, 431 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Ala.1983). On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on several issues. First, plaintiffs ......
-
Owens v. National Sec. of Alabama, Inc.
...402 So.2d at 951. The non-movant need only establish a scintilla of supporting evidence to avoid summary judgment. White v. White, 431 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Ala.1983). Before reaching the issue of whether Owens assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent, we must first find some evidence t......
-
Williams v. Nolin
...is a disputed material fact, even a scintilla of evidence supporting the nonmoving party will preclude summary judgment. White v. White, 431 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Ala.1983). The trial court found as a matter of law that the release was dispositive of the present suit. Plaintiff argues, however,......