Legal Opinion

West v. McKay

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 6, 1932No. 8 Div. 389PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

In order that “the purchaser be put in possession of the land by the seller,” in compliance with section 8034, subd. 5, Code, the possession of the purchaser “must refer exclusively to the contract sought to be enforced and be such as would not be done but for” it. Formby v. Williams, 203 Ala. 14, 81 So. 682, 683; Jones v. Jones, 219 Ala. 62, 121 So. 78; Hagood v. Spinks, 219 Ala. 503, 122 So. 815.

So that from this general rule it follows that the possession of a tenant in common who has contracted orally to buy from his cotenant is ordinarily not sufficient as an act of part performance of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Formby v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
  2. Jones v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  3. Hagood v. SpinksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  4. Stephens v. Regenstein & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
  5. Trammell v. CraddockSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Shaughnessy v. EidsmoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  2. Talley v. TalleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  3. Spruiell v. STANDFORDSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
  4. Pierce v. MurphreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1962
  5. Gibson v. BryantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1958

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API