Bibber v. Carville

• Decision Date: 28 December 1905
• Citation: 101 Me. 59,63 A. 303
• Parties: BIBBER v. CARVILLE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

63 A. 303

101 Me. 59

BIBBER

v. CARVILLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 28, 1905.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Sagadahoc County.

Bill in equity by Randall D. Bibber against Edward E. Carville, wherein the plaintiff prayed that a certain deed of warranty made, executed, and delivered by him to the defendant might be canceled, alleging that by a mistake on his part, arising from his ignorance of certain facts, he had included in such deed certain land to which he had no title at the time he gave the deed. Plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had begun an action at law against him for breach of a covenant in said deed claiming damages in the sum of $1,000, and asked that injunctions, both temporary and perpetual, be issued against the defendant to restrain him from further prosecuting his action at law. Defendant demurred to the bill. The demurrer was sustained by the justice of the first instance. Plaintiff then took exceptions. Overruled.

Argued before EMERY, STROUT, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

Frank E. Southard, for plaintiff. Rufus F. Springer, for defendant.

POWERS, J. Exceptions to a decree sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff's bill, and dismissing the bill, with costs.

In substance the bill alleges that Denham Hall, being the owner of a lot of land in Bowdoin, containing about 100 acres, mortgaged the same to James M. Hall in 1806 and to one Bibber in 1870. In 1880 James M. Hall assigned the mortgage to Bibber, who in 1888 foreclosed the mortgage given to him and the foreclosure became absolute. Bibber died in 1897, leaving as his sole heir at law the plaintiff, who in 1902 conveyed the premises to the defendant by warranty deed. At the time he gave the deed, the plaintiff believed that he had full title to the premises, but being afterwards notified by the defendant that such was not the case, he investigated the matter in the registry of deeds, and found by the records therein that Bibber and Denham Hall, the mortgagor, in 1873 conveyed about 25 acres of the premises to one Cox, who, the plaintiff alleges he is informed and believes, has ever since claimed to be in possession thereof. Thereupon the plaintiff offered to return the consideration and asked the defendant to reconvey. The defendant declined to accept the money or reconvey, and brought suit for covenant broken, which is now pending in court. Plaintiff in his bill further offers to pay back the consideration received from the defendant and also such other sum, if any, as justice and equity may require; and prays that the deed to the defendant may be canceled, and for an injunction against the prosecution of said suit.

Does the plaintiff present a case for equitable relief? No fraud, falsehood, misrepresentation, or concealment on the part of the defendant, the grantee, is alleged. There is no mistake as to the terms of the deed. It expressed precisely what the parties intended. There was a mistake on the plaintiff's part as to the title, resulting in the not common case of a man giving a warranty deed of land which he does not own. Our attention has been called to no case where under the circumstances such as are here alleged a deed has been canceled on the prayer of a grantor.

"Defects in the title do not entitle the grantor to a rescission of the conveyance." 8 A. & E. Enc. L. (2d Ed.) 222. We see no reason why the grantee, who acted in good faith, is not entitled in good conscience to retain the benefit of the contract which he made. The grantor, who received the full price he set upon the property, has no equitable right to deprive him of it simply because he was mistaken as to his title, and is liable upon his covenants. While a court of equity may decree the rescission of a contract for a mistake which is unilateral, the power should not be exercised against a party whose conduct has in...