Wooten v. Steele

Decision Date22 June 1893
Citation98 Ala. 252,13 So. 563
PartiesWOOTEN v. STEELE ET AL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Marengo county; James B. Head, Judge.

Action of assumpsit by James A. Steele and others against Council B Wooten for money had and received. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John C Anderson, for appellant.

Geo. W Taylor, for appellees.

COLEMAN J.

The action is in assumpsit, upon the common count, for money had and received. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and statute of limitation of three years. At the close of the evidence, the court, upon their request, gave the general charge for the plaintiffs. There is no conflict in the evidence. In January, 1877, Thomas S. Fry conveyed to Robert L. Steele certain tracts of land, in trust, with general power of sale, the proceeds to be applied by him to the payment of debts due and owing to certain named creditors. Included in the debts to be paid was one due the grantee and trustee, Robert L. Steele, for $3,489.74, and one due the defendant, Wooten, for $2,500. One of the tracts of land designated as the "Odom Place," was sold by Robert Steele to the defendant, C. B. Wooten, in consideration of which Wooten executed to him his written obligation "to pay said Steele one-half of the amount the above-mentioned lands may sell for. It is agreed that I am not to be responsible to the said Steele for any amount except it accrues from the sale or other disposition that may be made of the Odom lands. Said land contains about 2,520 acres, and is situated in Wilcox Co., Ala. This the 23rd day of May, 1882. [Signed] C. B. Wooten." Robert L. Steele died in the year 1883. His estate was duly administered upon, and the administration finally settled in the year 1886. It was then proven that Wooten sold the Odom place in January, 1888, for $3,000. It was further proven that there were no debts against the estate of Robert L. Steele. This suit was instituted by the heirs of Robert L. Steele, after demand, in February, 1891, to recover the one-half of the purchase money for which Wooten had sold the land. The written obligation of Wooten was to pay to Steele "one-half for which the above lands may sell for." The lands were sold in 1888 for $3,000. The statute of limitation of three years has no application where the assumption is evidenced by an express obligation to pay a fixed amount.

It is contended that plaintiffs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Sullivan v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 1903
    ...when there is no necessity for administration, and when there has been a complete administration and final settlement. Wooten v. Steele, 98 Ala. 252, 13 So. 563. But action here is on the contract. It is for damages for breach of an express contract to render services for a stipulated consi......
  • Byrd v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 7 Febrero 1933
    ... ... "Their claim merely as distributees should be asserted ... through administration." In Wooten v. Steele, ... 98 Ala. 252, 13 So. 563, the Supreme Court said: "The ... rule is that the legal title of a decedent to personal ... property vests ... ...
  • Jones v. R.L. Clemmer & Son
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 1911
    ... ... This ... distinction between courts of equity and courts of law has ... not been uniformly observed. In the case of Wooten v ... Steele et al., 98 Ala. 252, vol. 13, So. R., page 562, ... which was an action of assumpsit in a court of law, the court ... in rendering ... ...
  • Pinkston v. Arrington
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 22 Junio 1893
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT