McCarty v. Harris

113 So. 233, 216 Ala. 265, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 138
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 26, 1927
Docket6 Div. 858
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 113 So. 233 (McCarty v. Harris) 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
McCarty v. Harris, 113 So. 233, 216 Ala. 265, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 138 (Ala. 1927).

Opinion

BROWN, J.

This bill is filed by the appellees to require specific performance of a contract to sell and convey real property. The contract expresses the consideration, is in writing, and is subscribed by the party to be charged, in full compliance with the statute of frauds. Code of 1923, § 8034.

The contract provides:

“The purchase price is to be $8,000.00 payable as follows: $100.00 as earnest money and part payment of said purchase price, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the remainder of said purchase (price) payable as follows: $2,900.00 cash when the deal is closed, balance payable at the rate of $50.00 per month with interest figured in. The seller agrees to let the purchaser put a first mortgage on the above-described real estate. The above-mentioned $2,900.00 cash to be paid out of proceeds of the first mortgage.”

The contract is not affected with vitiating uncertainty for failing to specify the rate of interest on the deferred payment, as, in the absence of a specified rate, the legal rate is applicable. Code of 1923, § 8563; Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Jones, 79 Ala. 475.

Nor is the contract rendered so uncertain that its specific performance may not be decreed by failing to specify the amount of the first mortgage which the purchaser is authorized to place upon the property. This provision is not of the essence of the contract to convey, but is a mere subsidiary part of the agreement, and uncertainty in such provisions will not prevent a decree of specific performance. 25 R. C. L. 219, § 18; Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 227, 26 Am. Dec. 657, and note page 670.

The decree of the circuit court overruling the demurrers to the bill is free from error.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Paape v. Grimes
260 A.2d 644 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1970)
Lahaina-Maui Corp. v. Tau Tet Hew
362 F.2d 419 (Ninth Circuit, 1966)
Lahaina-Maui Corporation v. Joseph Tau Tet Hew
362 F.2d 419 (Ninth Circuit, 1966)
Wesley N. Taylor Co. v. Russell
194 Cal. App. 2d 816 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Johnson v. Watson
272 P.2d 580 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1954)
Pierce v. Watson
39 So. 2d 220 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Dobson v. Deason
28 So. 2d 418 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1946)
Cay v. Ferrell
195 So. 224 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
Harris v. McCarty
118 So. 379 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
King v. Scott
116 So. 681 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 So. 233, 216 Ala. 265, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarty-v-harris-ala-1927.