110 Ala. 115 | Ala. | 1895
All. the facts of this case were agreed upon by the parties and stated in writing to the court. And upon the facts thus agreed upon and presented to the court there was, also by agreement, a trial of the case by the judge of the court without jury. The conclusion and judgment of the court was in favor of the defendants ; and it is argued that we can not review that conclusion and judgment because there was no special finding of the facts by the judge, reliance being had in support of this position upon Quillman v. Gurley, 85 Ala. 594, and the cases there cited. The argument and position are untenable. We do not in the least question the soundness of Quillman v. Gurley or the other cases in that line of authority, but to the contrary reaffirm them. The infirmity of appellees’ contention lies in its assumption that there was no special finding of the facts in this case. The court took the agreed statement of facts, covering, as it did, every fact in the
This is an action of detinue prosecuted by LeBron et al. against Josiah Morris & Co., for the recovery of a cashier’s check which was deposited with the defendants by one Pickeriflg for delivering to the plaintiffs, if said Pickering should fail to comply in certain particulars with the terms of a contract entered into by and between him and LeBron and associates. The stipulation of this contract providing for the deposit of this check, or rather money for which the check was substituted by mutual agreement, is as follows : “It is further understood and agreed that said F. B. Pickering shall deposit with Josiah Morris & Co. one thousand ($1,000) dollars to-be forfeited to said A. W. LeBron if the land is not purchased and paid for and the electrical street railway is not constructed and put into operation as hereinbefore covenanted and agreed. Two hundred ($200) dollars of said amount is to be deposited upon the organization of a street railway company by said A. W. LeBron, B.. P. Lexter and Phares Coleman, and the transfer by said LeBron, Dexter and Coleman to said F. B. Pickering of all rights, franchises, stock, property &c. they may have in said street railway company ; and the remaining eight hundred dollars ($800) of said one thousand dollars ($1,000) is to be deposited with the said Josiah Morris & Co. upon the deposit with said Josiah Moms & Co. by said A. W. LeBron of a list of solvent subscribers to said bonds as required and stipulated for by the 6th article of this agreement, and to the satisfaction of the said F. B. Pickering. It is further understood and agreed that said one thousand dollars ($1,000) so deposited as a forfeiture can bo withdrawn from said bank at any time by a mutual agreement and consent by said A. W. LeBron and M.
But, it is further contended that LeBron and associates failed to comply with the requirements of section (5 of the contract, and in consequence of such failure it ceased to be binding upon Pickering, and he was no longer under any obligation to purchase and pay for the land, &c., &c. That section is in the following terms: “It is further understood and agreed that the said A. W. LeBron and his associates shall subscribe for at least thirty thousand ($30,000) dollars of the bonds to be issued by said corporation formed and organized in fur-theianceof this agreement, and for the purpose of the improvement and development of the said lands, and for the construction and operation of an electrical street railway ; and that a list of the subscribers to said bonds be deposited with Josiah Morris & Oo. within the next ten (10) days. The bonds so subscribed for by said A. W. LeBron and associates to be sold to him and the subscribers therefor at eighty (80) cents on the dollar; but said bonds are not to be delivered to said subscribers, nor paid for by them, until after the completion of said electrical street railway.” The only other reference to this subscription matter in the contract is contained in paragraph 7, which is set out first above, where it is provided that $800 of the $1,000 deposit — the other $200 having previously been deposited — “is to be deposited with Josiah Morris & Co. upon the deposit with.said Josiah Morris & Co. by said A. W. LeBron of a list
It is shown that LeBron and associates organized a corporation to build an electrical street railway, secured certain franchises therefor from the city of Montgomery,
The failure of Pickering to purchase and pay for the land was, our conclusion is, such breach of the contract as worked a forfeiture of the check to LeBron and associates, un'ess the breach was waived by them. The only circumstance relied on as constituting a waiver is, that LeBron,.as president of the Cloverdale Land & Development Company, being empowered and directed thereto by the directors of that company, accepted for the company a conveyance of the McClellan and Scheerer land, and as such president executed to them the contract and agreement of that company to pay the purchase price therefor in a certain specified way. It is true that ever after this transaction it -was out of the power of LeBron and associates to acquire that land and convey it to that corporation as was contemplated in the contract between him and Pickering. But Pickering’s breach of the contract was prior to this, and McClellan and Scheerer withdrew from the original arrangement and took their deed out of escow before-this, because of such previous breach on the part of Pickering. And, moreover, LeBron’s connection wiljh this subsequent matter between McClellan and Scheerer and the Cloverdale Company was merely that of an officer of that corporation, doing ministerially the bidding of its governing body, as in duty bound, and his acts in this capacity cannot be set up as a waiver by himself and associates of individual rights already fully perfected and vested by Pickering’s default.
No different conclusion would be reached were we to hold, as we do not, that failure on the part of Pickering and his assigns to build the street sailway according to the terms of the contract was a cumulative condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to the check, for we do not find that this obligation was ever waived and it is made clearly to appear that it was never discharged ; the road had not been built even at the time of the trial below.
Reversed and remanded.