Zirkle v. Ball
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Darling Shop of Birmingham, Inc. v. Nelson Realty Co. (Ala. 1954)
- Sims v. City of Birmingham (Ala. 1950)
- Blackburn v. McLaughlin (Ala. 1918)
- Richardson v. PNC Mortgage (In re Richardson) (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama 2015)
- Rice v. Sinclair Refining Co. (Ala. 1952)
- Rogers v. Gonzalez (Ala. 1949)
- Asbury v. Cochran (Ala. 1942)
- Mitchell v. Walker (Ala. 1938)
- Catanzano v. Hydinger (Ala. 1936)
- Nixon v. Albert (Ala. 1936)
- Bay Minette Land Co. v. Stapleton (Ala. 1932)
- General Securities Corporation v. Welton (Ala. 1931)
- Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co. (Ala. 1928)
- Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co. v. Bullard (Ala. 1927)
- Alexander v. Abernathy (Ala. 1926)
- Parker v. Houston (Ala. 1926)
- Hawkins v. Coston (Ala. 1926)
- Robinson v. Wade (Ala. 1925)
- Emond v. Robison (Ala. 1925)
- Baker v. Howison (Ala. 1925)
- Forrester v. Granberry (Ala. 1924)
- Enslen v. Woodlawn Realty & Development Co. (Ala. 1923)
- Fambrough v. Townson (Ala. 1920)
- Rice v. Rice (Ala. 1917)
- Lowy v. Rosengrant (Ala. 1916)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The contract in question did not provide for a forfeiture, ipso facto, upon a default in the payment of the installments, but authorized the respondents to declare it forefited as a contract of sale, and treat it as a lease, within a certain time after a default in the payment of said purchase-money installments. The contract was made in March, 1902, and the payments of $15 per month and interest all matured before 1906, yet the respondents, up to and including the month when Queen Rice died, March, 1906, received payments from her and treated the contract of purchase as still existing, which was long after they had the right thereunder to terminate it as a contract of purchase and thus convert it into a lease. Not having terminated the contract of sale within the terms and under the provisions thereof, the respondents could not thus waive their right to then do so and continue to treat it as a contract of sale, and then, after the death of Queen Rice, and after a large portion of the purchase money had been paid, declare the sale forfeited and treat the purchase money as rent.—Stewart v. Cross, 66 Ala. 22; Davis v. Robert, 89 Ala. 408, 8 South. 114, 18 Am. St. Rep. 126;
■ It is not essential to the maintenance of a bill for specific performance that the complainant vendee offer to perform, or tender a deed, before filing the bill. A failure to do so affects only the question of costs.”—Ashhurst v. Peck, 101 Ala. 509, 14 South. 541, and cases cited; Taylor v. Newton, 152 Ala. 459, 44 South. 583. The bill in the present case offers to do equity, and to pay whatever is due on the purchase contract; and the chancery court had the power to require the doing of same as a condition precedent to relief, and to protect the respondents as to costs, in case they did not resist the performance.
The decree of the city court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.