TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McCarty v. Harris

McCARTY v. HARRIS Et Al.

McCarty v. Harris, 113 So. 233 (Ala. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 26, 1927
Docket
No. 6 Div. 858
Judges
Brown, Anderson, Somerville, Thomas
Citations
113 So. 233216 Ala. 2651927 Ala. LEXIS 138

Opinion of the Court — Brown

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 21940: 11946: 11949: 11954: 11961: 11966: 11970: 119282026peak 1928 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wesley N. Taylor Co. v. Russell194 Cal. App. 2d 816 (1961)
  2. Paape v. Grimes260 A.2d 644 (Md. 1970)
  3. King v. Scott116 So. 681 (Ala. 1928)
  4. Dobson v. Deason28 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 1946)
  5. Pierce v. Watson39 So. 2d 220 (Ala. 1949)
  6. Cay v. Ferrell195 So. 224 (Ala. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Paape v. Grimes260 A.2d 644 (Md. 1970)
  2. Lahaina-Maui Corp. v. Tau Tet Hew362 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1966)
  3. Wesley N. Taylor Co. v. Russell194 Cal. App. 2d 816 (1961)
  4. Johnson v. Watson272 P.2d 580 (Nev. 1954)
  5. Pierce v. Watson39 So. 2d 220 (Ala. 1949)
  6. Dobson v. Deason28 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 1946)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Campbell Printing Press & Man. Co. v. Jones, 79 Ala. 475 (1885) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list