Case Title: Kirksey Motors, Inc. v. General Acceptance Corp.

Citation: 161 So. 2d 475

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1964-02-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
161 So. 2d 475 (1964)
KIRKSEY MOTORS, INC.
v.
GENERAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION.
6 Div. 946.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 20, 1964.
Shores & Morris, Birmingham, for appellant.
Sirote, Permutt, Friend & Friedman, Birmingham, for appellee.
HARWOOD, Justice.
Appellant, complainant below, filed its bill for an accounting and discovery against the appellee. The appellee's demurrer to the bill was sustained, the appellant being allowed twenty days in which to amend its bill. Thereafter, the appellant, in accordance with Section 755, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, as amended, moved to dismiss its bill without prejudice, and with leave to appeal. This motion was granted.
*476 Those portions of the bill pertinent to this appeal aver:
The bill discloses a legal claim sought to be enforced in this equity suit. Before equity will assume jurisdiction of such a claim, the bill must show that the accounts are mutual, or so difficult and complicated to adjust that relief at law is inadequate, or that a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties.
The bill does not allege mutual accounts, nor do the facts averred disclose mutual accounts.
Mutual accounts exist where there is reciprocity of dealing between the parties, and do not include accounts where the items are all on one side, Todd v. Todd, *477 15 Ala. 743; there must be debits and credits on both sides. Wilson v. Calvert, 18 Ala. 274. Each party must have a cause of action against the other, Covington v. Covington, 216 Ark. 549, 226 S.W.2d 557; Gresty v. Briggs, 127 Kan. 151, 272 P. 178, and where an account is all on one side, it does not have the character of a mutual account. Weadon v. First National Bank and Trust Co., 129 Conn. 541, 29 A.2d 779.
While the bill avers that the appellee could hold back from the "reserve" amount due appellant any loss incurred by appellee on an individual contract, this was but a method of determining the ultimate amount, if any, owed by appellee to the appellant. Reciprocity was lacking in that if appellant failed to send any customers to the appellee, the appellee would be without grounds for any legal action. The element of mutuality is lacking insofar as shown by the averments of the bill.
Clearly no fiduciary relationship between appellant and appellee is averred in the bill. The bill merely sought the collection of a debt allegedly owed by appellee to the appellant.
To invoke equity jurisdiction for an accounting, a general averment of complication of accounts is insufficient. Beggs v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 96 Ala. 295, 11 So. 381. An account is not complicated merely because it involves a large number of items. Segrest v. Brown, 263 Ala. 342, 82 So. 2d 432.
There is no sufficient averment in the bill showing such a complication of the accounts as to render inadequate a legal remedy. This is requisite to the maintenance of the bill in its accounting aspect. Comer v. Birmingham News Co., 218 Ala. 360, 118 So. 806.
In the discovery aspect the bill avers that "Complainant is without knowledge as to what loss, if any, Respondent has incurred," and that "information concerning the condition of which is known only to Respondent."
It is not enough that complainant has no actual and accurate knowledge as to the facts upon which his right of action depends. Pate v. Bruner, 243 Ala. 648, 11 So. 2d 356.
Under the facts alleged in the bill it clearly appears that the special relief sought by way of discovery would be equally obtainable under the liberal provisions of Sections 474(1) to 474(17), Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, in aid of any legal action brought by appellant. Ex parte Adams Construction Co., 251 Ala. 347, 37 So. 2d 497.
The judgment of the lower court was correct and is hereby ordered to be affirmed. Wooten v. Wooten, 270 Ala. 191, 117 So. 2d 192.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.