Holk v. Snider

Supreme Court of Alabama

Holk v. Snider

323 So. 2d 425, 295 Ala. 93, 1976 Ala. LEXIS 1882

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 5, 1976

DocketSC 1428

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 323 So. 2d 425 (Holk v. Snider) 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

Holk v. Snider, 323 So. 2d 425, 295 Ala. 93, 1976 Ala. LEXIS 1882 (Ala. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

MADDOX, Justice.

This is the second time this case has been here.

The Hoiks, as purchasers, sought performance of an agreement to purchase a piece of land from appellee, Mrs. Snider. The circuit court, in the first trial, denied specific performance. The Hoiks appealed.

On appeal, this Court concluded that the Hoiks were entitled to specific performance. Holk v. Snider, 294 Ala. 318, 316 So.2d 675 (1975). Even though there was some disagreement on the Court as to whether the agreement was an accepted option to purchase or a bilateral executory contract, this Court nevertheless held that the Hoiks were entitled to have specific performance. The case was reversed and remanded.

[94]*94On remand, the trial judge again denied specific performance, and in his decree stated:

“ * * * This court is of the opinion that its original decision was sound and equitable. This Court does not feel bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Appellate Court’s decision does not meet the requirements of Title 13, Section 14, of the Code.”

Title 13, § 14, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recomp.1958 as amended 1969), provides:

"When concurrence of five judges, and when of four sufficient. — The concurrence of five judges in the determination of any cause shall be necessary and sufficient thereon, except when, by reason of disqualification, the number of judges competent to sit therein is reduced to seven or to six, in which case such reduced number shall constitute the court; and the concurrence of four judges shall suffice.”

Granted, the resolution of an issue must be concurred in by the requisite number of judges, Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Stuart, 289 Ala. 657, 270 So.2d 792 (1972), but that principle has no application here, because there was a concurrence of five judges in the determination that specific performance was warranted. This is the law of the case and was binding upon the trial court. This case is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that the court enter an order in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES and EMBRY, JJ., concur.

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

MADDOX, Justice.

This is the second time this case has been here.

The Hoiks, as purchasers, sought performance of an agreement to purchase a piece of land from appellee, Mrs. Snider. The circuit court, in the first trial, denied specific performance. The Hoiks appealed.

On appeal, this Court concluded that the Hoiks were entitled to specific performance. Holk v. Snider, 294 Ala. 318, 316 So.2d 675 (1975). Even though there was some disagreement on the Court as to whether the agreement was an accepted option to purchase or a bilateral executory contract, this Court nevertheless held that the Hoiks were entitled to have specific performance. The case was reversed and remanded.

[94]*94On remand, the trial judge again denied specific performance, and in his decree stated:

“ * * * This court is of the opinion that its original decision was sound and equitable. This Court does not feel bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Appellate Court’s decision does not meet the requirements of Title 13, Section 14, of the Code.”

Title 13, § 14, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recomp.1958 as amended 1969), provides:

"When concurrence of five judges, and when of four sufficient. — The concurrence of five judges in the determination of any cause shall be necessary and sufficient thereon, except when, by reason of disqualification, the number of judges competent to sit therein is reduced to seven or to six, in which case such reduced number shall constitute the court; and the concurrence of four judges shall suffice.”

Granted, the resolution of an issue must be concurred in by the requisite number of judges, Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Stuart, 289 Ala. 657, 270 So.2d 792 (1972), but that principle has no application here, because there was a concurrence of five judges in the determination that specific performance was warranted. This is the law of the case and was binding upon the trial court. This case is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that the court enter an order in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES and EMBRY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 So. 2d 425, 295 Ala. 93, 1976 Ala. LEXIS 1882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holk-v-snider-ala-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack