Terry v. Allen Bros.

32 So. 664, 132 Ala. 657, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 115
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 28, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 32 So. 664 (Terry v. Allen Bros.) 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
Terry v. Allen Bros., 32 So. 664, 132 Ala. 657, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 115 (Ala. 1902).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.

— When any ground or assignment of demurrer to a complaint is sustained, the demurrer to that complaint is sustained; and if plaintiff declines to amend, judgment final must be rendered against him. It is of no consequence that the court may in terms overrule one or any pumber less than the whole of the assignments of demurrer1: The sustaining of any assignment is as effectual as the sustaining of the demurrer generally or each and all its assignments expressly.—Watson v. Jones Bros., 121 Ala. 579.

The complaint in each of its counts, except the one last filed by way of amendment, on October 2, 1901, set up a contract whereby the plaintiffs undertook to' assign to defendants, and the latter undertook to exercise upon certain terms, a statutory right of redemption of certain lands from the purchaser at a foreclosure sale, and claimed damages for a failure on the part of the defendants to carry out this contract. As the statutory right of redemption is not property nor any right in property but a mere personal privilege conferred by the law upon one whose lands have been sold in foreclosure proceedings and the like, and as this privilege is not assignable and cannot be exercised by any person other than him \ipon whomi the statute has conferred it, it is clear that those grounds of the demurrer which set up the want of consideration for the undertaking of the defendants and the absence of any duty, obligation or capacity on the part of the defendants to carry out the undertaking they had nominally assumed, were well taken; and that of consequence the demurrer was properly sustained on such grounds.

The supposed action of the trial court in striking the count filed October 2, 1901, is not shown here by a bill of exceptions, and we, therefore, cannot review it.

Affirmed.

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

Related

McCary v. Davis
59 So. 2d 569 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1952)
State v. Gray
55 So. 2d 358 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1951)
State v. Gray
55 So. 2d 354 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
State v. Martin
10 So. 2d 671 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1942)
Choctaw Bank v. Dearmon
134 So. 648 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Gulf Electric Co. v. Fried
119 So. 685 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Nevada Motor Co. v. Bream
269 P. 602 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1928)
Hammond v. White
108 So. 347 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Hammond v. White
108 So. 346 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Gulf Coast Lumber Co. v. Miles
90 So. 281 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Bank of Mobile v. Lewis
80 So. 179 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Horton v. Hovater
66 So. 939 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Haas v. Thayer
3 Ohio App. 372 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1914)
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Bagley
55 So. 894 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Gainesville & Gulf Railroad v. Peck
55 Fla. 402 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1908)
Wallace v. Markstein
40 So. 201 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 So. 664, 132 Ala. 657, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-v-allen-bros-ala-1902.