Carroll v. Ryder
Decision Date | 01 July 1912 |
Citation | 34 R.I. 383,83 A. 845 |
Parties | CARROLL et al. v. RYDER et ux. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Bill by Hugh V. Carroll and another against Thomas Ryder and wife. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Hugh J. Carroll, of Pawtucket, and Lester T. Murphy, of Providence, for appellants.
Quinn & Kernan, of Providence, for respondents Ryder.
Edward C. Stiness, of Providence, for respondent Watts.
This is a bill in equity, brought by Hugh V. Carroll and Thomas M. Carroll, doing business as Carroll Brothers, against Thomas Ryder and Elizabeth Ryder, his wife, and prays for the reformation of a certain deed given by the respondent Thomas Ryder to the complainants, dated December 14, 1906, and covering two lots of land, in the town of Warwick, on what is known as the "William C. Nichols Plat." This cause was heard in the superior court upon bill, answer, and proofs. A decree was entered dismissing the bill, and the cause is now before us upon complainants' appeal from that decree.
On December 14, 1906, Thomas Ryder, one of the respondents, by a deed of warranty, conveyed to the complainants lots 15 and 16 on the said Nichols plat. Some months later it was discovered that the title to lots 15 and 16 was in Elizabeth Ryder, the wife of Thomas, before mentioned, whereupon Thomas and Elizabeth, on April 12, 1907, made a deed of said lots 15 and 16 to the Carrolls, which was designed to perfect the title of the Carrolls; such intention being expressed in the last-named deed. The complainants' bill sets forth that through a mutual mistake of the parties the land intended to be conveyed by the deed of December 14, 1906, from Thomas Ryder to them, was erroneously described therein as lots 15 and 16, on the Nichols plat, whereas it should have been described as lots 13 and 14 on said plat. Upon lots 13 and 14 there was a building, while lots 15 and 16 were without any improvements whatsoever.
From an examination of the record it is at once apparent that it was the original intention of both of the parties to the deed of December 14, 1906, that the one was to sell and the others to purchase, the two particular lots with which the building was associated, viz., lots 13 and 14. This intention seems to us to be clearly evidenced both from the testimony and the circumstances surrounding the transaction. The testimony shows that the complainants were induced to make the purchase because they could use the building as a storehouse; that they occupied the premises, including both the building and the lots 13 and 14, from 1906, without any objection on the part of the respondents or any demand from them for rent; that the receipts given for the purchase money stated that such money was received for land and building; that since 1906 Mr. Ryder, one of the respondents, has himself used and occupied lots 15 and 16, Mr. Ryder also stating at different times that he had sold to the Carrolls the barn and two lots; and that it was intended that the Carrolls should get lots 13 and 14. Besides, the price paid for the property would be consistent with the purchase of lots 13 and 14, with the building thereon, but would be grossly in excess of the value of the unimproved lots 15 and 16. Upon the Nichols plat a street is indicated, running easterly and westerly, between the four lots mentioned; that is to say, lots 14 and 16 adjoin each other on the north side, and lots 13 and 15 adjoin each other on the south side, the two lots on one side being exactly opposite the two lots upon the other side. This tract of land, so indicated as a street, does not appear to have been dedicated, devoted to, or used for highway purposes; nor does it appear that any one has acquired any rights therein by way of easement or otherwise. It has always been regarded and treated as a part of the adjacent lots. In the deed of lots 15 and 16 from the respondent Thomas Ryder to the complainants, as well as in the later deed from both respondents to the complainants, which last-named deed was designed to correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conti v. Fisher
...418, take this view. Complainant and the lower court regard the instant case as ruled, not by the Macomber Case, but by Carroll v. Ryder, 34 I R. I. 383, 83 A. 845. From the rescript of the trial justice it appears that some uncertainty may exist as to whether the Ryder Case overrules or li......
-
McDuff Estate v. Kost, 1027.
...These words are clear and explicit and leave no room for doubt as to their meaning and effect Complainant cites Carroll et al. v. Ryder et ux., 34 R. I. 383, 83 A. 845, 847, in support of its contention. This was a bill for reformation of a deed on the ground of mutual mistake in the descri......
- Clarke v. Joslin