Walthall v. Anderson

Statement of the Case. SAYRE, J. Appellee’s bill avers that defendant, Thomas A. Walthall, Jr., together with one G. S. Anderson, purchased a tract of land for which they paid in part and “negotiated a loan for tbe balance of the purchase price”; that G. S. Anderson bad full control and management of tbe property, divided it into blocks and plots for sale, sold tbe greater part of tbe land in numerous small tracts, viz., 40, receiving in some cases tbe entire purchase price, in others a part only, tbe balance being secured by mortgage, some of which have been foreclosed, while others have been paid in part. Rents were collected for some of tbe land before its resale. Expenses were incurred in tbe plotting and sale of tbe land. Complainant subsequently purchased tbe interest of G. S. Anderson in tbe land, together with all mortgages, liens, and other evidences of debt growing out of tbe transactions mentioned above, but knows nothing of tbe details. Complainant prays for an accounting and a settlement with defendant. Defendant’s demurrer to tbe general effect that tbe bill did not sufficiently state a case for an accounting was overruled, and from that decree defendant appeals. Opinion. Tbe court is of tbe opinion that the averments of tbe bill, which are set out in short above, disclose a case in which tbe court should afford tbe relief sought by complainant. They show a case of complicated account, the balance of which depends upon debits and credits which have not been adjusted between tbe parties. We recognize tbe rule that where a bill contains a mere general and vague charge that tbe account between tbe. parties is voluminous and complicated and such general averment is inserted merely to bring tbe case within tbe jurisdiction of equity, tbe court will not entertain tbe bill. Beggs v. Edison Co., 96 Ala. 299, 11 So. 381, 38 Am. St. Rep. 94. Tbe present bill, we think, discloses a case of material and substantial complication with items of debit and credit sufficiently invoking tbe jurisdiction *265 of the court. Kirkman v. Vanlier, 7 Ala. 217; Chrichton v. Hayles, 176 Ala. 223, 57 So. 696. Affirmed. ANDERSON, 0. J., and GARDNER and MILLER, JJ., concur.