In Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298, it was ruled that the grantor had no remedy save by way of action at law; but the authorities elsewhere are well-nigh unanimous that the remedy at law affords no substantial relief. Mr. Pomeroy (section 2108) says: "Legal relief by periodic suits for damages is manifestly inadequate."
Summary of this case from Russell v. CarverDecided May 30, 1989
ORDER AFFIRMED
In Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298, it was ruled that the grantor had no remedy save by way of action at law; but the authorities elsewhere are well-nigh unanimous that the remedy at law affords no substantial relief. Mr. Pomeroy (section 2108) says: "Legal relief by periodic suits for damages is manifestly inadequate."
Summary of this case from Russell v. CarverIn Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298, the recited consideration of the deed was the sum of $5 presently paid, love and affection, and the promise of a stranger to the deed to provide for the sustenance and support of the grantor and to make specified repairs and improvements upon the property conveyed.
Summary of this case from Woodley v. WoodleyFull title:HAIGHT, GARDNER, POOR HAVENS v. KNIGHT
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: May 30, 1989
MAYFIELD, J. The case made by the bill in this cause is no better than the case made by the bill in the case…
Hunter v. Watters137 So. 128; McClelland v. M. Holding Co. (Fla.) 137 So. 887; Price Hdwe. Co. v. Meyer, 224 Ala. 35, 138 So.…