Robert G. Lassiter & Co. v. Nixon
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
We see no escape from the conclusions of the trial court in this case.
As we read and understand the contract, upon the meaning of which the issue in suit depends, it contains no terms which can be called ambiguous. Plaintiffs undertook “to do all this grading [required by defendants’ contract number 153 with the highway commission], including subgrading and finishing the shoulders”; and defendants undertook to pay for “this grading” at the rate of 30 cents per cubic yard. These mutual undertakings are expressed in terms of ultimate plainness and simplicity. Not only are the terms used…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Turner v. TurnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- Henderson v. FearyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1976
- Brown v. OldhamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
- Waters v. MerrittSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
- Smith v. McCain Boiler and Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1969