Foreman & Co. v. Blewett

Alabama Court of Appeals

Foreman & Co. v. Blewett

173 So. 396, 27 Ala. App. 365, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 16

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1937

Docket1 Div. 272.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 So. 396 (Foreman & Co. v. Blewett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foreman & Co. v. Blewett, 173 So. 396, 27 Ala. App. 365, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 16 (Ala. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The pleadings necessary for a consideration of this appeal are contained -in count 4 of the complaint, as amended, and defendant’s plea 3, which sets out the entire alleged contract between the parties.

The entire negotiation for the sale and purchase of the stock described in the complaint was carried on by telegrams, evidencing the necessity for prompt action, the first being dated December 1, 1932, and the last December 2, 1932. The first telegram was an offer to purchase 500 Nu-Grape stock “at once.” The second telegram was from plaintiff to defendant, accepting the offer, which included prompt delivery. The third was a telegram from the Citronelle State Bank, guaranteeing the payment of the purchase price. The fourth telegram was from plaintiff to defendant, undertaking to modify the time of delivery, and the fifth telegram was from defendant to plaintiff, canceling the order by reason of the delay .in delivery. All of which evidences the fact that time was of the essence of the contract and that, in view of telegram No. 4, the defendant had a right to cancel the order. Either that, or it is very apparent that the minds of the parties had never met upon the necessary terms of. the contract here undertaken to be enforced.

We see no necessity for an extended discussion or the citation of authority. The pleadings speak for themselves, and that is the view taken by the trial court in its rulings bn the various pleadings seeking an issue.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The pleadings necessary for a consideration of this appeal are contained -in count 4 of the complaint, as amended, and defendant’s plea 3, which sets out the entire alleged contract between the parties.

The entire negotiation for the sale and purchase of the stock described in the complaint was carried on by telegrams, evidencing the necessity for prompt action, the first being dated December 1, 1932, and the last December 2, 1932. The first telegram was an offer to purchase 500 Nu-Grape stock “at once.” The second telegram was from plaintiff to defendant, accepting the offer, which included prompt delivery. The third was a telegram from the Citronelle State Bank, guaranteeing the payment of the purchase price. The fourth telegram was from plaintiff to defendant, undertaking to modify the time of delivery, and the fifth telegram was from defendant to plaintiff, canceling the order by reason of the delay .in delivery. All of which evidences the fact that time was of the essence of the contract and that, in view of telegram No. 4, the defendant had a right to cancel the order. Either that, or it is very apparent that the minds of the parties had never met upon the necessary terms of. the contract here undertaken to be enforced.

We see no necessity for an extended discussion or the citation of authority. The pleadings speak for themselves, and that is the view taken by the trial court in its rulings bn the various pleadings seeking an issue.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 So. 396, 27 Ala. App. 365, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foreman-co-v-blewett-alactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack