Wolffe v. Perryman
| Decision Date | 06 April 1891 |
| Parties | WOLFFE v. PERRYMAN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; JAMES B. HEAD, Judge.
This action was brought by the appellee, E. D. Wolffe, against the appellant, W. E. Perryman, and sought to recover of the defendant the sum of $500, as due under a contract for the sale and delivery of 50 shares of the capital stock of the South Anniston Land Company, sold by defendant to the plaintiff. The complaint counted on an account for money had and received; and it also contained a count setting forth the transaction in which the stock was purchased. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and, by special pleas, that the contract as proved by the plaintiff had been settled by a compromise; and, second, that the contract upon which the plaintiff based his recovery was a wager, and therefore void. The facts, as shown by the bill of exceptions, are substantially as follows: About the 27th of October, 1888 Wolffe made an oral contract with Perryman for the purchase of 50 shares of the capital stock of the South Anniston Land Company at $11 per share. These shares of stock were to be delivered at seller's option at any time within 12 months. The evidence showed that the seller's option, as stipulated in this contract, meant that Perryman had an option to deliver these shares of stock at any time he saw fit within 12 months from the date of the purchase; the delivery not to be delayed longer than 12 months. This contract was fully proved by the testimony of the plaintiff and five other witnesses. The demand for the stock was made at the expiration of 12 months, and at the date of the maturity of the contract; but the defendant failed and refused to make the delivery. It was shown that at the date of delivery the stock was worth between $18 and $21. There was also introduced in evidence a written contract, made between the defendant, Perryman, and the firm of Lanier Bradfield & Co., of which firm the plaintiff was a member. This contract was made in September, 1888, and recited a sale by Perryman and purchase by Lanier, Bradfield & Co. of 50 shares of South Anniston Land Company stock at $8 per share at seller's option of 12 months. It was shown that this contract was settled in May, 1889, and Perryman gave his receipt therefor. In the testimony of the defendant he disclaimed all knowledge of making this oral contract testifying that he did not remember making any other than the written contract as introduced in evidence. The witness Smith, to whose testimony as to the terms of the contract defendant objected, after having first stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fenner & Beane v. Phillips
...or void, because of being a wager upon market fluctuations, and therefore unenforceable. Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52; Perryman v. Wolffe, 93 Ala. 290, 9 So. 148; Allen v. Caldwell, 149 Ala. 293, 42 so. 855; 1907, § 3349. If the intention of both the parties, at the time of contracting, be th......
-
Baker v. Lehman, Weil & Co.
...absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, the law will presume that an actual delivery of the cotton was intended. Perryman v. Wolffe, 93 Ala. 290, 9 So. 148. ownership or possession of cotton by defendant at the time of his agreement to sell to plaintiffs was not at all essential to......
-
Marengo Abstract Co. v. C.W. Hooper & Co.
...or void, because of being a wager upon market fluctuations, and therefore unenforceable. Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52; Perryman v. Wolffe, 93 Ala. 290, 9 So. 148; Allen v. Caldwell, 149 Ala. 293, 42 So. 855; 1907, § 3349. If the intention of both the parties, at the time of contracting, be th......
-
Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Currey
... ... That intention ... rendered the contracts unlawful alike in New York and ... Alabama. Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52; Perryman v ... Wolffe, 93 Ala. 290, 9 So. 148; Allen v ... Caldwell, 149 Ala. 293, 42 So. 855; Story v ... Salomon, 71 N.Y. 420; Embrey v. Jemison, 131 ... ...