Friedman & Loveman v. McAdory
This text of 85 Ala. 61 (Friedman & Loveman v. McAdory) 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.
Opinion
— It is manifest that the present suit was prematurely brought, and the decree of the chancellor must be affirmed on that account. A bill for specific performance can not be maintained, until the complainant, alike by his averments and proof, shows himself entitled to have the agreement carried into effect. — Bradford v. Marbury, 12 Ala. 520; Grimball v. Patton, 70 Ala. 626, 636; Thompson v. Gordon, 72 Ala. 455.
We do not regard this as a ruling on the merits; and hence, if it is thought the complainant can compel the performance of the alleged agreement after the completion of the storehouse, the present ruling should not and will not prejudice his right to maintain such suit. Abstaining from any positive expression of opinion on the merits, we refer to Linn v. McLean, at the present term.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
85 Ala. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-loveman-v-mcadory-ala-1887.