Blanks v. Walker

Supreme Court of Alabama

Blanks v. Walker

54 Ala. 117

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 54 Ala. 117 (Blanks v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blanks v. Walker, 54 Ala. 117 (Ala. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

We can not agree with appellant that the record fails to show the amended answer was allowed by the chancellor. His order made in vacation, dated September 14th, 1875, considered in connection with the motion of defendent to be allowed to file an amended answer, amounts to an order by him allowing such answer to be filed. We think, also, that when he ordered the answer to be filed as of that date, it was permissible for him to consider its denials when the case came afterwards before him- — October 2d — -on motion to dissolve the injunction. The answer being allowed by the chancellor, and ordered to be filed, became from that [120]*120time, and for all practicable purposes, a part of the pleadings in the cause.

The bond for title, given by Walker to Blanks, bound the former to make to the latter a good and sufficient title to the lands therein described. Such title he, could not convey unless he was himself seized in fee. It was enough, however, under the facts disclosed in this record, for him to have such title, when Blanks, by payment' or tender of the purchase money, placed himself in condition to demand title.—Clemins v. Loggins, 2 Ala. 514

Other principles apply, however, 'where there is fraud in the sale.—See Young v. Harris, 2 Ala. 108; Elliott v. Boaz, 9 Ala. 772; Bonham v. Walton, 24 Ala. 514 Or, when the vendor is insolvent, has either no title ór a defective title, and is seekimg to force the collection of the purchase money, on an executory contract of sale.—See Kelley v. Allen, 34 Ala. 663, and authorities therein collected; Magee v. McMillan, 30 Ala. 420; McLemore v. Mabson, 20 Ala. 137.

The only available equity in the present bill, is Walker’s alleged insolvency, and inability to respond in damages — his title being alleged to be imperfect. The averment of insolvency and inability to respond in damages, is denied with clearness and certainty, quite equal to the averments of the bill. We think the defendant brought himself strictly within the rule, and that the chancellor rightly dissolved the injunction.—1 Brick. Dig. 677, § 548.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STONE, J.

We can not agree with appellant that the record fails to show the amended answer was allowed by the chancellor. His order made in vacation, dated September 14th, 1875, considered in connection with the motion of defendent to be allowed to file an amended answer, amounts to an order by him allowing such answer to be filed. We think, also, that when he ordered the answer to be filed as of that date, it was permissible for him to consider its denials when the case came afterwards before him- — October 2d — -on motion to dissolve the injunction. The answer being allowed by the chancellor, and ordered to be filed, became from that [120]*120time, and for all practicable purposes, a part of the pleadings in the cause.

The bond for title, given by Walker to Blanks, bound the former to make to the latter a good and sufficient title to the lands therein described. Such title he, could not convey unless he was himself seized in fee. It was enough, however, under the facts disclosed in this record, for him to have such title, when Blanks, by payment' or tender of the purchase money, placed himself in condition to demand title.—Clemins v. Loggins, 2 Ala. 514

Other principles apply, however, 'where there is fraud in the sale.—See Young v. Harris, 2 Ala. 108; Elliott v. Boaz, 9 Ala. 772; Bonham v. Walton, 24 Ala. 514 Or, when the vendor is insolvent, has either no title ór a defective title, and is seekimg to force the collection of the purchase money, on an executory contract of sale.—See Kelley v. Allen, 34 Ala. 663, and authorities therein collected; Magee v. McMillan, 30 Ala. 420; McLemore v. Mabson, 20 Ala. 137.

The only available equity in the present bill, is Walker’s alleged insolvency, and inability to respond in damages — his title being alleged to be imperfect. The averment of insolvency and inability to respond in damages, is denied with clearness and certainty, quite equal to the averments of the bill. We think the defendant brought himself strictly within the rule, and that the chancellor rightly dissolved the injunction.—1 Brick. Dig. 677, § 548.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Ala. 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanks-v-walker-ala-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack