May v. Lewis

22 Ala. 646
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 22 Ala. 646 (May v. Lewis) 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
May v. Lewis, 22 Ala. 646 (Ala. 1853).

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

The special relief prayed for was, that the defendants should be decreed to pay the amount of the purchase money found to be due to the complainant; and he clearly was not entitled to this relief, as the bill upon its [648]*648face shows a perfect right to recover at law upon the contract. The lands were to be paid for out of the proceeds of the mills as received, and the bill expressly alleges, that the defendants had received from the mills an amount sufficient to pay the purchase money; and if this was the case, there is no reason why he should not recover on the contract at law.

The bill, however, contains the general prayer for relief; and the rule is, that although the complainant may mistake the relief to which he is entitled in his special prayer, he can, under the general prayer, obtain the relief which is appropriate to the case made by the bill. Here the allegations of the bill show the contract for the sale of the lands; that the vendor retained the title in himself as security for the purchase money; that the purchase money is due, and the purchasers in default. These facts are all which are necessary to authorize a court of chancery to enforce a vendor’s lien on land for the purchase money. Haley v. Bennett, 5 Porter 452; Chapman v. Chunn, 5 Ala. 397. As under the prayer for general relief, upon the case made by the bill, the Chan. Cdlor might have afforded the appropriate relief, although not the relief specially prayed for, he erred in dismissing the bill.

Let the judgment be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded.

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

Related

McDonald v. McDonald
193 So. 2d 519 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Butler v. Butler
148 So. 2d 638 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Northcutt v. Northcutt
77 So. 2d 336 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Magnolia Land Co. v. Malone Investment Co.
79 So. 641 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Reiger v. Turley
131 N.W. 866 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)
Rosenau v. Powell
55 So. 789 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Belzoni Oil Co. v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad
47 So. 468 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1908)
McDonnell & Co. v. Finch
131 Ala. 85 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1901)
Dormitzer v. German Savings & Loan Society
62 P. 862 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
Tompkins v. Cooper
25 S.E. 247 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)
Fite, Porter & Co. v. Kennamer
90 Ala. 470 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Munford v. Pearce
70 Ala. 452 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Burkett v. Munford
70 Ala. 423 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Teague v. Wade
59 Ala. 369 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)
McIntosh v. Reid
45 Ala. 456 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1871)
Wood v. Sullens
44 Ala. 686 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1870)
Betts v. Gunn
31 Ala. 219 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Ala. 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-lewis-ala-1853.