Forney v. City of Birmingham

Specific Performance. 1. Specific Performance; Persons Liable. — A grantee of land with knowledge of an existing contract giving a third person an option to purchase, occupies the same position as to such third person as the grantor, and may he compelled to specifically perform just as the grantor could, had he not parted with the legal title. 2. Same; Remedy at Law. — The fact that the holder of an option contract for the purchase of land has a remedy against his vendor for breach of the contract because he has conveyed the property to another who had knowledge of the existence of the option, does not take away from the holder of the option his equitable remedy to compel specific performance of the contract. 3. Same; Option Contract; Validity; Enforcement. — The fact that the holder of an option contract for the purchase of real estate was an alderman of the city, which subsequently purchased the property from the original vendor with knowledge of the option contract, does not destroy the right of the holder of the option contract to compel specific performance, the holder not having acquired his rights through any transaction with the city.

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. A. H. Benners. Bill by J. C. Forney against the City of Birmingham' for specific performance of a contract-. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill, defendant appeals. The facts made by the hill are that Forney held options to purchase from the owner thereof certain described lands; that tbe option was running in tbe name of one M. Y. Henry, or his assigns, who was in truth and in fact acting for orator in the transaction; that the options were in full force and effect on the day the respondent corporation, becoming aware that the tract of land could be secured for the purpose of the city and desiring such tract of land, entered into negotiations with the owner for the purchase of it, but that before said negotiations were closed respondent had full, complete, and accurate notice of the right of complainant under his said options; and that respondents contended that, as orator was a member of the board of aldermen of respondent, he had no1 rights in the premises which respondent was bound to respect, and so, in defiance of the rights of complainant, concluded negotiations for the purchase, and purchased and became the owner of the property. The offer is then made to comply with the options and to pay what is due to complete the purchase, with a prayer for specific performance, together with certain interrogatories. The demurrer is that there is no equity in the bill. The respondent had a perfect right to purchase the land without infringing upon the rights of appellee, and if appellee has any redress, it is against his vendor for breach of contract. — ■ 4 Mayfield, 839; 44 Am. Dig. 1750. There was no averment of any consideration paid for the option, or for its extension, and this is necessary. — 21 A. & E. Encyc. of Law, 926. Being an alderman of the city, complainant could not be interestetd in any sale of the land to the city, or receive any pecuniary benefit therefrom.— Sec. 1194, Code 1907. Appellants had full knowledge of the existence of the option, and therefore occupied the same position as the original vendor, and hence were liable to specifically perform. — Ross v>. Parks, 93 Ala. 153; Meyer Bros. v. Mitchell, 75 Ala. 475; Dicjwtr son v. Amy, 25 Ala. 427; Davis v. Roberts, 89 Ala. 402. There is absolutely no merit in the other positions taken by appellant.