Crookston Improvement Co. v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 25 May 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8820 |
| Citation | 59 N.W. 294,57 Minn. 333 |
| Parties | Crookston Improvement Co. v. Annie L. Marshall et al |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Submitted on briefs May 17, 1894
Appeal by defendants, Annie L. Marshall, L. D. Marshall her husband Maria Munch, William Munch, her husband, Emma E. Kelsey and W. E. Kelsey, her husband, from an order of the District Court of Polk County, Frank Ives, J., made January 13, 1894 refusing their motion for a new trial.
In the United States survey of the public lands where Crookston is now situated the elbows of the Red Lake River broke up into lots the ordinary government subdivisions. Lots six (6) and seven (7) in Section 25, T. 150, R. 47, and Lot four (4) in Section 30, T. 150, R. 46, comprised a portion of the west bank around which the river flowed on the north, east and south. Lot four (4) contained eleven acres and lay east of and adjoining the other lots and was the extreme eastern end of the peninsula. Julius Bjornstad owned these three government lots and laid out Sampson's Woodland Addition to Crookston upon the two western lots. In surveying and staking out the town lots he unconsciously got over the east line onto the government lot four (4) from forty to seventy five feet. He soon after on April 6, 1883, conveyed all three government lots to the plaintiff, Crookston Improvement Company, and it afterwards sold to settlers the eastern town lots in the plat and dwelling houses were built on several of them. On August 26, 1892, plaintiff conveyed to defendants Annie L. Marshall, Maria Munch and Emma E. Kelsey for $ 1,200, government lot four (4), not knowing at the time that the platted town lots overlapped upon its western border. Discovering this fact it brought this action to reform the deed so as to except therefrom the strip along the west line of government lot four (4) covered by the town lots, claiming that on the sale its agent Sampson pointed out on the ground to the defendant's agent Munch the land intended to be conveyed as about eleven acres in the elbow of the river between the platted town lots and the river and that stakes, fences and improvements marked the line between the platted addition and the unplatted land to the east. The court made findings of these facts and ordered judgment for plaintiff reforming the deed. Defendants moved for a new trial. Being denied they appeal.
Order affirmed.
A. A. Miller, for appellants.
To change the terms of a written instrument the evidence must be clear, convincing and satisfactory. Beard v Linthicum, 1 Md. Ch. 345; Hunter v. Bilyeu, 30 Ill. 228; Bailey v. Bailey, 8 Humph. 230; Nevius v. Dunlap, 33 N.Y. 676; Lyman v. United Ins. Co., 2 John. Ch. 630; Graves v. Boston M. Ins. Co., 2 Cranch 419; Ford v. Joyce, 78 N.Y. 618.
The mistake must be mutual and must be clearly made out by satisfactory proof, by evidence clear of all reasonable doubt. Guernsey v. American Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 104; Sloan v. Becker, 34 Minn. 491; Gillespie v. Moon, 2 John Ch. 585; Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290; Miner v. Hess, 47 Ill. 170; Shattuck v. Gay, 45 Vt. 87; Newton v. Holley, 6 Wis. 592; Lake v. Meacham, 13 Wis. 355; Wells v. Ogden, 30 Wis. 637.
H. Steenerson, for respondent.
The point of land in the bend of Red Lake River here in question comprised government lots Nos. 6 and 7, in Sec. 25, T. 150, R. 47, and Lot 4, in Sec. 30, T. 150, R. 46. On April 16, 1883, it was all owned by Julius Bjornstad who platted Sampson's Woodland Addition to Crookston as lying on lots 5 and 6, but as staked out on the ground it extended from forty to seventy five feet over, eastward upon lot 4. Bjornstad and wife on April 16, 1883, conveyed all of the addition to plaintiff corporation and also conveyed to it lot 4 which lies directly east of the other tract and forms the extreme eastern point of the peninsula. The parts of the addition overlapping onto lot 4 are the eastern portion of blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4. In 1883 and 1885 plaintiff conveyed the most easterly lots in block 1 and in block 2, and in 1887 in block 3 to innocent purchasers, and these lots have been occupied, and valuable improvements made, prior to the conveyance in dispute.
The addition was surveyed by O. L. Hamery, surveyor, and proper monuments erected. Stakes were driven at the corners of each block and streets plainly marked on the ground. The east line of the addition was supposed to coincide with the west line of government lot 4, and there was, at the time of laying out and platting, a line blazed on the trees across this point of land at this place which was assumed to be the section line. Afterwards there was a fence erected across the point nearly on this blazed line. In the spring or summer of 1892 Mr. Munch acting for grantees came to Mr. Sampson, president of the plaintiff, and asked to purchase the land east of the fence. Afterwards Sampson went with Munch on the ground and showed him the line and also showed him the fence and told him the line only ran a few feet from the house, and showed him the actual east line of Sampson's Woodland Addition as staked out on the ground. He took him over there two or three times while they were talking over the bargain.
Munch lived on block 7 in the same addition over seven years prior to this purchase. Three days after deed was delivered Munch got surveyor Ralph to run the section line and he located this line from fifty to seventy feet in on the platted portion. Then Munch built a fence on this line, fencing in the houses of these people and closing the streets, the fence running from river to river. Munch testifies that he did not know where the line was and did not know that government lot 4 overlapped the addition. That is just what Sampson was...
To continue reading
Request your trial