Title: Livingston v. Bedford

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

224 So. 2d 873 (1969)
Ralph Hiram LIVINGSTON et al.
v.
Joe J. BEDFORD, Jr., et al.
6 Div. 394.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 3, 1969.
McEniry, McEniry & McEniry, Bessemer, for appellants.
Brobston & Brobston, Bessemer, for appellees.
COLEMAN, Justice.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of voluntary nonsuit taken in an action for breach of a contract.
As last amended, the complaint contained three counts. The error complained of is that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.
As we understand plaintiffs' brief, they do not insist that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the first two counts, but they do insist that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to Count III which recites as follows:
There is no exhibit attached to Count III. We suppose that by referring to "Exhibit `A'" in Count III, plaintiffs intended to incorporate in Count III the same Exhibit A which appears to be attached to Count II. It is questionable whether the exhibit is sufficiently incorporated in Count III, but we will not belabor this point because the exhibit would not save Count III from the demurrer, if the exhibit were properly made a part of Count III.
The exhibit is a copy of a warranty deed executed on the 30th day of July, 1963, by defendant, Joe J. Bedford, Jr., and his wife, conveying to plaintiffs the lot of land described in Count III.
The pertinent allegations of Count III are:
"Plaintiffs claim of the Defendants ... damages for breach of a contract for the purchase of a house built by the Defendant, Joe J. Bedford, Jr., for the Plaintiffs on the 30th day of July, 1963, ... which was owned at that time by the Defendant, Joe J. Bedford, and subsequently conveyed *875 to Plaintiffs.... while said house was under construction and .... was partially constructed .... in, to wit, May of 1963, Plaintiffs talked to Defendant, Joe Bedford, Jr., regarding the purchase of said house when completed and were assured by him that said house was constructed to this point .... in the best workmanlike manner; .... and were further assured by Joe J. Bedford, Jr., that the house would be completed.... in the best workmanlike manner and relying on these representations.... Plaintiffs signed a .... contract for the purchase of the real property.....Joe J. Bedford, Jr., was unable to complete the sale under this contract..... a second contract.... was executed .... and the deed shown as Exhibit `A: was obtained on July 30, 1963..... Plaintiffs....further aver that after they had resided in said house for a day or two in August, 1963, they discovered ...." (Emphasis supplied) the alleged defects in the house and defendant agreed to correct them but failed to do so, all to plaintiffs' damage.
Plaintiffs mention two contracts in Count III. They do not allege either contract in haec verba or in substance. They do not clearly allege the date on which either contract was entered into. This court has said:
In 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 535 i., p. 1046, the writer states:
A fair interpretation of Count III is that the first contract was superseded by the second contract. Plaintiffs cannot recover on the first contract.
Plaintiffs do allege that "a second contract.... was executed .... and the deed .... was obtained on July 30, 1963." Plaintiffs allege that they had conversations with defendant "regarding the purchase of said house when completed." (Emphasis supplied.) Plaintiffs do not allege when the house was completed.
As we read Count III, it is ambiguous and doubtful in that the allegations can be taken to mean that the contract to purchase, on which plaintiffs sue, was entered into prior to completion of the house or subsequent thereto. In that situation, the doubt will be resolved against the plaintiffs. Nunnally Co. v. Bromberg & Co., 217 Ala. 180, 186, 115 So. 230. We must, therefore, construe Count III to mean that the contract sued on was entered into after completion of the house.
In Druid Homes, Inc. v. Cooper, 272 Ala. 415, 131 So. 2d 884, this court held there was no implied warranty that improvements located on real property sold were constructed in good and workmanlike manner. The court quoted from Williston on Contracts as follows:
Plaintiffs undertake to distinguish the instant case from Druid Homes. Plaintiffs contend that they contracted to purchase a lot "upon which a seller (builder) is in the process of constructing improvements...." We have undertaken to show that the allegations of Count III do not support plaintiffs' contention. Consequently, we hold on authority of Druid Homes, that Count III does not state a cause of action and that the court did not err in sustaining demurrer thereto.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.