Mims v. Cobbs
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham, in Equity. Heard before the Hon. W. W. Wilkebson. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham, in Equity. Heard before the Hon. W. W. Wilkebson. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The bill is in the nature of a bill for specific performance, and shows on its face, that neither complainant nor the heirs of his intestate, are able to convey a title free from in-cumbrance to said lot, but are relying upon getting a decree to sell, and upon selling it to raise money with which to discharge the incumbrances on it, so as to enable Mims’ vendors to make a deed in compliance with tbeir bond for title. Complainant is in no…
1Opinion of the CourtHead, J.
The bill is to enforce the vendor’s lien on land. It is in the nature of a bill for specific performance. The facts, as shown by the bill as amended, are, that Ellis Phelan owned the lot in question, and on the 25th day of November, 1886, sold and conveyed it by deed to D. W. Austin, who executed to Phelan his four notes for the purchase money, each for the sum of $300, and payable, with interest, one, two, three and four years after date, respectively. On February 1, 1887, Austin sold the lot to John C. Westbrook, at the price of $2,100, of which a part was paid in cash ; and, for the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ware v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Bingham v. VandegriftSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Kelly v. LongshoreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
3Cited by8 opinions
- Threefoot Bros. & Co. v. HillmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland v. RichesonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Alabama, T. & N. Ry. v. TolmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Fendley v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Gilliland Mercantile Co. v. SinclairSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.