Williams v. Neal

• Decision Date: 02 July 1907
• Citation: Williams v. Neal, 152 Ala. 435, 44 So. 551 (Ala. 1907)
• Parties: WILLIAMS ET AL. v. NEAL ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

44 So. 551

152 Ala. 435

WILLIAMS ET AL. v. NEAL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 2, 1907

Appeal from Chancery Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Chancellor.

Bill by George Neal and another against W. L. Williams and others.From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal.Reversed and rendered.

See40 So. 943.

Brannen & Gardner and J. M. Chilton, for appellants.

Foster Samford & Carroll, for appellees.

HARALSON J.

This bill was filed by the complainants, Neal and McElvey purchasers of land under a written contract of sale and purchase, which contract is made an exhibit to the bill and seeks an abatement of the purchase price unpaid, and, as incident thereto, a specific performance of the contract of sale, on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation in the sale in respect to the quantity and quality of the land agreed to be sold.

That phase of the bill which seeks a specific performance of the contract is not urged or insisted on in argument of counsel for complainants, the appellees, nor do we see that there is room for such an insistence, as the contract is assailed on account of misrepresentation and fraud on the part of the sellers.Counsel say in brief, "We do not rely for abatement of the purchase money on ground of a breach of the warranty contained in the contract; but on ground of actual fraud alleged to have entered into the transaction," and this is the burden of their argument, without reference to a specific performance of the contract.This relief, as stated is brought forward merely as an incident to the relief sought for an abatement of the purchase money, on account of misrepresentation and fraud as to the quantity, more especially, and the quality of the land.If this phase were entertained, then they insist on the other.We may therefore, confine ourselves to a consideration of this latter ground as a basis for relief.

The case is thus brought within the narrow limits, of a consideration of the question whether the bill for an abatement of the purchase price of the lands for the alleged deficiency as to quality and quantity sold, on account of misrepresentation and fraud of the vendors in reference thereto, can be maintained.

A ground of demurrer to the bill, among other grounds was, that "said bill fails to show that complainants have not an adequate remedy at law."

The case of Bell v. Thompson,34 Ala. 633, many times approved in this court, seems to settle this question.It was there said: "Under the Code (section 2240--the set-off statute) the claim of the complainant, for an abatement of the purchase-money, or for damages on account of such misrepresentations, may be allowed as a set-off in the action at law; or it may be recovered in an independent suit at law against the vendor.Holley v. Younge,27 Ala. 203;Gibson v. Marquis,29 Ala. 668;Munroe v. Pritchett,16 Ala. 785, 50 Am. Dec. 203.

"It is a well-settled doctrine of this Court, that a court of equity will not take jurisdiction of a case, upon the mere ground that the complainant is entitled to compensation on account of a deficiency of the land sold, or to damages for the fraudulent misrepresentations of the vendor, either as to its quantity or quality.Such a claim, though well founded is not recognized as an independent ground of equitable relief, and...