Pierce v. Tidwell
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from tlie City Court of Birmingham. Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The appellees, Benjamin Tidwell, Mary E. C. Tidwell, and Hannah Pamelia Tidwell, brought suit against the appellant, J. T. Pierce.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tlie City Court of Birmingham. Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The appellees, Benjamin Tidwell, Mary E. C. Tidwell, and Hannah Pamelia Tidwell, brought suit against the appellant, J. T. Pierce. The complaint contained the “ common counts,” and, also, a special count on the following written contract: “ This agreement made this the 13th day of September, 1879, by and between J. T. Pierce, of Pierce-ville Warrior, Jefferson county, Alabama, and Benjamin Tidwell, Hannah Pamelia Tidwell, his wife, and Mary E. O. Tidwell, his daughter; witnesseth, that the said Benjamin, Hannah…
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
— The contract sued on imposes on the defendant a binding obligation to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of twenty dollars per month so long as “the said mine is worked, and to an advantage.” What is meant by the “said mine” as used in this written contract between the parties? The plaintiffs contend that it means the mine designated in the contract as “the Pierce Warrior Coal *304Mine,” which was being worked by the defendant, and in connection with which the land of the plaintiff, called the Tidwell tract, was being used, and of which it formed a part. The defendant, on the other hand, contends…
2Cited by9 opinions
- American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. SewellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Montgomery Enterprises v. Empire Theater Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Randolph v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- O'Barr v. TurnerAlabama Court of Appeals · 1917
- Read v. GouldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.