Brocking v. Straat

• Decision Date: 07 April 1885
• Citation: 17 Mo.App. 296
• Parties: S. BROCKING ET AL., Respondents, v. J. N. STRAAT, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

17 Mo.App. 296

S. BROCKING ET AL., Respondents,

v.J. N. STRAAT, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Apr. 7, 1885.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HORNER, J.

Reversed and judgment.

JOHN N. STRAAT and H. I. D'ARCY, for the appellant:

A court of equity will not reform a deed, the mistakes of which “the parties thereto are ready and willing to correct.”-- Laver v. Dennett, 109 U. S. 98. One who is not a grantee for value has no standing in equity as against an innocent third person.-- Martin v. Jones, 72 Mo. 26; Fox v. Hall, 74 Mo. 317. A deed, particularly an acknowledged deed ( Young v. Duvall, 109 U. S. 577) will never be reformed on the evidence of interested parties alone.-- Fessenden v. Ockington, 20 Me. Certainly not when the reformation is sought by one member of a family against another member who does not object, for the obvious purpose of defeating creditors, whose rights have intervened.--Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, sect. 50; Pollock on Contracts, 455, ed. Wald.

W. B. THOMPSON, for the respondents: In the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court of equity to correct mistakes made by the grantors in a deed, the court will grant relief between the original parties and their privies in estate or law; the only exception is in favor of bona fide purchasers without notice, and the judgment creditor does not for this purpose occupy the position of such a purchaser.--Story's Equity, sect. 165, 11th ed.; Haley v. Bagley, 37 Mo. 375; Schwear v. Haupt, 49 Mo. 225; German Ins. Co. v. Grim, 32 Ind. 249; Cumming v. Freer, 26 Mich. 138.

ROMBAUER, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to reform a deed of trust, in regard to the description of property intended to be conveyed thereby and for incidental relief.

Plaintiffs aver in their petition that on January 28, 1879, George Rinkel, Jr., was indebted to Susanna Brocking for money loaned by her to him. That he executed to her a note for $2000.00 payable three years after date, and himself and his wife, Catharine, conveyed to Sutter, as trustee for said Brocking, to secure the payment of said note, lot 4 in block 4 of Gamble's Rose Hill subdivision, having a front of 217 by a depth of 358 feet, which property belonged to his wife, Catharine Rinkel.

That it was at that time agreed and was the intention of himself and wife to convey as such security, instead of such lot, another lot, which other lot was the property of George Rinkel, Jr., and that he instructed one Watson, who was the scrivener preparing the deed, to include therein such other lot, but that said Watson by mistake inserted in the deed the description of lot 4 in block 4 aforesaid, and himself and wife executed the deed thus prepared, believing that it conveyed the lot owned by him, George Rinkel, Jr. That Catharine Rinkel, whose property was thus conveyed by mistake, was in no manner liable for the debt to Brocking.

That all the plaintiffs are willing and ready to correct the mistake in such manner as the court shall direct.

The petition further states that on the 22nd day of October, 1879, the Real Estate Savings Institution obtained judgment against George Rinkel, Jr., for $20,990.94, which judgment the defendant claims to own, and that defendant has applied to the circuit court to sell the lot of George Rinkel, Jr., which was intended to be conveyed as aforesaid, and on which the homestead of said Rinkel is located.

The petition then prays for a reformation of the deed of trust as far as the description of the property conveyed is concerned, so as to substitute the lot owned by George Rinkel, Jr., for the lot owned by Catharine, his wife, and also for the release of the latter lot from the lien of the trust deed. The petition further prays that defendant may be enjoined from claiming any right, interest, or estate in preference to, or in priority of the rights of plaintiffs in the lot intended to be conveyed, and that defendant's judgment lien may be decreed by the court to be subordinate to the rights of the plaintiffs in the lot so intended to be conveyed, and for other and further relief, etc.

Defendant's answer denies the indebtedness of Rinkel to Brocking, and the execution of the $2,000 note mentioned in the petition. It admits the execution of the deed of trust, but denies that there was any mistake made in the description of the property; denies that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief; and asserts that defendant is the owner of the judgment for $20,990.94, and that such judgment is a lien on the lot of George Rinkel, Jr., superior to any lien which can be claimed thereon by the plaintiff, Brocking.

The cause was tried upon this petition and answer. Besides some documentary evidence hereinafter mentioned, plaintiffs introduced only George Rinkel, Jr., the grantor in the deed, and execution debtor, and Henry Watson, the scrivener who prepared the deed of trust sought to be reformed, as witnesses in support of the petition. Defendant offered no evidence.

George Rinkel, Jr., testified in substance that plaintiff, Brocking, was his wife's sister, and had been since infancy deaf and dumb. That he had collected some rents for her prior to the execution of the deed of trust, and owed her at the date of its execution about $2,500; that he agreed with her to give security for this amount by a second deed of trust on the lot on which his homestead was located; that he employed one Watson to draw the instrument and told him to make the deed to his, Rinkel's, brother-in-law, the plaintiff, Sutter, and not having the deeds with him at the time, told Watson to get the description from the records. That he executed a deed on Watson's representations that it covered his homestead, and then delivered it to plaintiff, Brocking, and that he never saw the deed again until the fall of 1883, when his attention was called to the matter by defendant himself, who informed him that the deed of trust did not cover his homestead. That he thereupon obtained the deed from Brocking, examined it, and discovered the mistake for the first time.

Rinkel further testified that lot 4 in block 4, being the lot described in the deed of trust, belonged to his wife. That neither himself, nor his wife, nor defendant, Brocking, read the deed before he signed it, and that Sutter was not present; also that his wife had acted at times as agent for Brocking. On cross-examination he testified that he had owed the money to Brocking for a number of years; that there was no judgment against him when he made the deed, but that he was indebted to the Real Estate Savings Institution at the time.

Henry Watson, the scrivener, testified that he was an attorney-at-law and notary, and that the $2,000 note and deed sought to be reformed are in his hand writing. That Rinkel told him he wished to execute a deed of trust of $2,000 on the piece of ground belonging to him on the St. Charles Rock Road, and fronting on such road 215 feet, on which was his homestead. Witness then stated “he did not have the deeds containing a description of the property and I came to the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the city of St. Louis, and found the plat which I now have before me, and I took from the plat the description of the lot which I supposed was the lot of the homestead. I see now that I made a mistake in the description, because the lot owned by George Rinkel, Jr., was a lot of 215 feet front, and was not lot 4 of block 4, and the lot on which Rinkel's homestead is situate is west of this lot. I remember Rinkel and wife signed the deed of trust and Rinkel signed the note; all are in my handwriting. I told Rinkel the papers are all right. I now find I made a mistake in the description. I was requested to have the deed of trust recorded and I left it in the recorder's office for record. I never knew anything of the mistake until a short time before this suit was brought, and I was asked by Mr. Rinkel about it.”

It appears from the plat of Rose Hill Addition which was given in the evidence that lot 4 in block 4 had a front of 100 feet, and the adjoining lot of George Rinkel, which was unnumbered, had a front of 216 feet, and that each lot had a depth of 358 3/12 feet.

The documentary evidence offered by plaintiffs consisted of deeds showing that lot 4 in block 4 had been conveyed to Catharine Rinkel, and was owned by her at the date of the execution of the deed sought to be reformed, and that the adjoining larger lot had been...