Wilson v. Dudley
Decision Date | 14 December 1954 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 449 |
Citation | 38 Ala.App. 86,76 So.2d 509 |
Parties | H. F. WILSON et al. v. B. Clifton DUDLEY. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
J. A. Walker, Jacob Walker, Jr., Walker & Walker, Opelika, for appellants.
Glenn & Glenn, Opelika, for appellee.
In the court below the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants in an action for deceit.
The request for the general charge was refused to the defendants.
There was a general verdict which did not refer to any particular count in the complaint. In this state of the record the verdict will be referred to a good count which is supported by the proof. Jones v. Belue, 241 Ala. 22, 200 So. 886; Morgan v. Embry, 17 Ala.App. 276, 85 So. 580; Lang v. Leith, 16 Apa.App. 295, 77 So. 445; Brush v. Rountree, 249 Ala. 567, 32 So.2d 246; White v. Jackson, 36 Ala.App. 643, 62 So.2d 477.
Count 1 of the complaint is:
'The Plaintiff B. Clifton Dudley claims of the defendants H. F. Wilson an individual and Wilson Realty Company, a corporation, Twelve hundred dollars ($1,200.00) as damages due from said defendants to said plaintiff, for that, heretofore, on towit, 15th day of July 1953, the said W. H. Wilson as agent of Wilson Realty Company a corporation, aforesaid, acting within the line and scope of his authority, wrongfully collected from said plaintiff with intent to deceive and defraud him, the sum of towit $1,000.00 and executed to the said plaintiff, the following writing, signed Wilson Realty Company By H. F. Wilson, President and reading as follows, towit:
Appellants' counsel urges in brief that this count was subject to the following grounds of demurrers:
It should be noted at the outset that this is not an action to enforce a contract, nor is it an action for a breach of a contract. Of course, deceit cannot exist without a breach of a legal or equitable duty; but an action for deceit is not equivalent to a suit for the breach of a contract. The two remedies are entirely different and do not require the same approach in the matter of pleading.
In a deceit action, based on contractual relations, it is not necessary to set out the contract in the complaint. It may became material as a matter of proof.
In 37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 88, p. 387, we find:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial