Hurst v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Macon Chancery Court: Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. The bill in this cause was filed on 23d January, 1882, and was subsequently amended. The purpose of the bill, and the •case made by it and the amendment thereto are sufficiently stated in the opinion. On the hearing, on motion of the defendants, a decree was entered, dismissing the bill for want of equity; and that decree is here assigned as error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
— This is a bill for specific performance of an •executory contract for the purchase of lands, the purchaser complaining, and praying relief. Such relief is never granted, unless complainant clearly shows himself entitled to it. It is never decreed unless strictly equitable. — 1 Brick. Dig. p. 692, § 160; Gentry v. Rogers, 40 Ala. 442.
The bill and amended bill must he construed as one. Governed by its averments, Mrs. Thompson was the owner of the lands in controversy — her statutory separate estate — in quantity four hundred acres. In 1879, an agreement of sale and purchase was entered into…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gentry v. RogersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1867
3Cited by6 opinions
- Zirkle v. BallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Bay Minette Land Co. v. StapletonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Cole v. HinesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
- Davis v. RobertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Commercial Union Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. ParvinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.