Chapman v. Lambert
Decision Date | 17 November 1911 |
Docket Number | 21,958 |
Parties | Chapman v. Lambert |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Elkhart Superior Court; Vernon W. VanFleet, Judge.
Action by Louisa J. Chapman against George Lambert. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court under § 1405 Burns 1908, Acts 1901 p. 590.
Affirmed.
L. D Hall, for appellant.
Davis & Schaefer, for appellee.
Louisa J. Chapman, appellant, commenced this action against George Lambert, appellee, for damages for collecting and discharging surface-water and sewage into her private sewer.
There was a special finding of facts made by the court and conclusions of law stated thereon. A decree was entered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The court found the following facts: On December 29, 1899 appellant was the owner of a tract of land situated in the city of Elkhart, commonly known as "Chapman's marsh." Prior to that date she had constructed on said land a private sewer, to carry from said tract the surface-water and sewage. The sewer began at a point about one hundred feet west of the east line of her tract and ran west through the land and emptied into a public sewer. Her land was low and marshy, and lower than the land immediately adjoining it on the east. On December 29, 1899, appellant entered into a written agreement with appellee for the sale to him of a three-acre tract, 132 feet wide, off the east side of "Chapman's marsh, * * * together with the sewer improvements thereon;" also a five-and-seventy-three-one-hundredths-acre tract 305 feet wide, off the west side of the same tract. The purchase price was $ 8,456.25. As a part of the same transaction, and for the same consideration, the parties at the same time executed what is termed a supplemental agreement with reference to the real estate, which reads as follows:
Melville S. Chapman, who signed the foregoing contract, was a son of appellant, and he owned no interest in the real estate at that time.
The description of the three-acre tract, in the first-mentioned contract, was, by mutual mistake, erroneous, but the tract is correctly described in the deed that was executed by plaintiff to defendant on January 10, 1901. Immediately after December 29, 1899, appellee took possession of the three-acre tract, and constructed sewers thereon, which he connected with the sewer originally constructed by appellant.
On December 29, 1900, plaintiff executed to defendant her deed for a part of the five-and-seventy-three-one-hundredths-acre tract, in which deed she reserved the right to use and make connections with the sewer, to extend the sewer and construct laterals thereto, and to grant to others the right to connect with the sewer and laterals. On January 10, 1901, plaintiff executed to defendant her deed for the remainder of the five-and-seventy-three-one-hundredths-acre tract, and on the same day executed her deed for the three-acre tract. The latter contains no reference to the sewer. Defendant procured a scrivener to draw the deed for the three-acre tract, but by mistake, gave him no instructions to embody therein the provisions of the supplemental contract concerning sewer rights and privileges of the parties. Plaintiff executed the deed without knowing the provisions thereof, but believed that it contained the provisions agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial