Williams v. Neal
Decision Date | 02 July 1907 |
Citation | 44 So. 551,152 Ala. 435 |
Parties | WILLIAMS ET AL. v. NEAL ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
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.
See 40 So. 943.
Brannen & Gardner and J. M. Chilton, for appellants.
Foster Samford & Carroll, for appellees.
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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franklin v. Nunnelley
... ... and if this were all, the remedy at law would be adequate and ... the bill without equity. Williams v. Neal, 152 Ala ... 435, 44 So. 551; Parker v. Ward, 224 Ala. 80, 139 ... So. 215; Neal v. Williams, 168 Ala. 310, 53 So. 94 ... But ... ...
-
Manning v. Carter
... ... "abatement of the purchase money" for the ... deficiency. This election he had the right to make. Manning ... v. Carter, supra; Williams v. Neal, 152 Ala. 435, 44 ... So. 551; Hodges v. Denny, supra; Bell v. Thompson, ... 34 Ala. 633 ... The ... decree of the circuit ... ...
-
Schock v. Underwood
...such a bill must seek specific performance of the contract or some other equitable relief. Bell v. Thompson, 34 Ala. 633; Williams v. Neal, 152 Ala. 435, 44 So. 551; Neal v. Williams, 168 Ala. 310, 53 So. 94; see Williams v. Neal, 147 Ala. 691, 40 So. 943; Catanzano v. Hydinger, 233 Ala. 11......
-
Hunt v. Jones
... ... On the contrary, fraud ... is, in many cases, cognizable in a court of law." ... Smith's Ex'r v. Cockrell, 66 Ala. 77; ... Williams et al. v. Neal et al., 152 Ala. 435, 44 So ... 551; 24 R.C.L. p. 363, sec. 653 ... As ... illustrative of this principle, it was held ... ...