Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • B
  • Baker v. Eufaula Concrete Co.Baker v. Eufaula Concrete Co.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Baker v. Eufaula Concrete Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
557 So. 2d 1228 (1990)


Facts

Guy Baker and his wife (Bakers) (plaintiffs) owned a 30-acre property. The Bakers entered into a contract with Eufaula Concrete Company (Eufaula) (defendant) that gave Eufaula the right to mine sand and gravel from the property for 10 years. Under the contract, Eufaula would pay the Bakers a royalty on every cubic yard of material extracted from the property. Additionally, the contract prohibited Eufaula from assigning its right to mine the property to anyone else without the Bakers’ consent. Seven years into the contract, Williams Brothers, Inc. purchased Eufaula. Eufaula was unable to get the consent of the Bakers to transfer its lease to Williams Brothers. The purchase agreement between Eufaula and Williams Brothers listed Eufaula’s lease with the Bakers as one of the items that Williams Brothers was acquiring. However, the agreement also stated that it did not constitute an assignment in regard to leases requiring consent to be assigned if consent was not granted. After the acquisition, equipment belonging to Williams Brothers was used to mine the property. The first month after the acquisition, Williams Brothers paid the Bakers their monthly royalties. From that time forward, Eufaula paid the Bakers their royalties, and Williams Brothers reimbursed Eufaula. A third-party miner who also extracted materials from the property paid Williams Brothers royalties, and Williams Brothers reimbursed Eufaula for these amounts. When the Bakers saw that Williams Brothers was mining the property, the Bakers sued for a declaratory judgment stating that Eufaula had assigned its lease to Williams Brothers in violation of the lease. At trial, Eufaula moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion and entered a directed verdict in favor of Eufaula. The Bakers appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial