Guilmartin v. Urquhart

• Decision Date: 27 January 1887
• Citation: 1 So. 897,82 Ala. 570
• Parties: GUILMARTIN and another v. URQUHART and another.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

1 So. 897

82 Ala. 570

GUILMARTIN and another v. URQUHART and another.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 27, 1887

Appeal from chancery court, Pike county.

Bill in equity for reformation of deed, and injunction of action at law.

The appellees, William Urquhart and another, heirs of Henry S Urquhart, deceased, filed their bill of complaint against the appellants, Minnie Guilmartin and John F. Guilmartin, for a reformation of the description of a lot of land in a conveyance alleged to have been executed by the appellants to said Henry S. Urquhart, and for an injunction of further proceedings in an action at law by appellant Minnie Guilmartin for the recovery of said lot of land alleged to have been misdescribed in said conveyance. The chancellor rendered a decree for the reformation of the deed as prayed in the bill.

Gardner & Wuley, for appellants.

Parks & Son, for respondents.

STONE C.J.

To authorize the reformation of a contract which has been reduced to writing and signed, the proof must be clear exact, and satisfactory- First, that the writing does not truly express the intention of the parties,-that on which their two minds had agreed; and, second, what it was the parties intended the writing should express. Alexander v. Caldwell, 55 Ala. 517; Campbell v. Hatchett, Id. 548; Turner v. Kelly, 70 Ala. 85; Berry v. Sowell, 72 Ala. 14. But chancery will not add to a contract a term or stipulation, unless it is shown the parties intended it should be inserted. Clark v. Hart, 57 Ala. 390. The reformation sought in this case is an alteration of the description of the lot of land which the bill alleges it was the intention of the parties to convey. The answer denies all intention to convey any property, and there is not a semblance of testimony that the grantors intended to convey, or thought they were conveying, the lot which the bill avers it was their intention to convey. Without noticing any other ground, the bill must fail for want of proof.

The decree of the chancellor is reversed, and a decree here rendered dismissing complainants' bill. Let the costs of the suit be paid by the complainants.

NOTE.

EQUITY-REFORMATION ON GROUND OF MISTAKE. The provisions of a written instrument will not be disturbed for the purpose of reforming it, unless it be shown -

1. That the instrument does not set forth the true intent of the parties. Fritzler v. Robinson, (Iowa,) 31 N.W. 61; St. Anthony Falls Water-power Co. v. Merriman, (Minn.) 27 N.W. 199; James v. Cutler, (Wis.) 10 N.W. 147.

2. That the failure to make the instrument express such intent arose from oversight or mistake in drafting it. Fitzler v. Robinson, supra.

3. That such mistake was mutual. Henderson v. Stokes, (N.J.) 8 A. Rep. 718; Spare v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 19 F. 14; Wachendorf v. Lancaster, (Iowa,) 14 N.W. 316, and 16 N.W. 533; James v. Cutler, supra; Houser v. Austin, (Idaho,) 10 P. 37. It must appear that both parties have done what neither intended. Henderson v. Stokes, supra; Spare v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., supra; Houser v. Austin, supra. Where there is any miscarriage in expressing the mind of a party to a contract, it would seem to be just that he should be bound by what he fairly expressed, whether he intended it as he expressed it or not. William Cramp & Sons' Ship & Engine Building Co. v. Sloan, 21 F. 561.

But an instrument may be reformed, though the mistake is not mutual, if the one party knew or had such implied knowledge of the mistake of the other as would make it inequitable to permit him to benefit thereby. Town of Essex v. Day, (Conn.) 1 A. Rep. 620; James v. Cutler, supra; Peasley v. McFadden, (Cal.) 10 P. 179.

4. Nor will such instrument be reformed unless the mistake be clearly proved. Baltzer v. Raleigh & A. A. L. R. Co., 6 S.Ct. Rep. 216; Griswold v. Hazard, 26 F. 135. It must be satisfactorily proved,-to a moral certainty. Spare v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., supra. The proof must be so full and clear as to leave no room for controversy. Henderson v. Stokes, supra. It must be entirely clear and satisfactory, Rawson v. Lyons, 23 F. 107; clear satisfactory, and conclusive, Cummins v. Monteith, (Iowa,) 16 N.W. 591; clear, satisfactory, and free from reasonable doubt, Wachendorf v. Lancaster, (Iowa,) 14 N.W. 316, and 16 N.W. 533. It must be clear and convincing, Fritzler v....