Corrigan v. Tiernay

• Citation: 13 S.W. 401,100 Mo. 276
• Parties: CORRIGAN et al. v. TIERNAY et al.
• Decision Date: 22 March 1890
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

13 S.W. 401

100 Mo. 276

CORRIGAN et al. v. TIERNAY et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 22, 1890.

REFORMATION OF DEED — MISTAKE.

Where a man purchases land with the intention of having the deed made to himself and wife as joint grantees, so as to convey an estate by the entirety, and so instructs the conveyancer, but through mistake the deed is made to the wife alone, a court of equity will, after the wife's death, vest the title in the husband, though the deed, when made, was read to him, and he thought it was sufficient to convey an estate by the entirety.

Error to St. Louis circuit court.

A. R. Taylor, for plaintiffs in error. R. M. Nichols, for defendants in error.

BLACK, J.

This was an action of ejectment for a lot having a front of about 22 feet by a depth of 137 feet, in St. Louis. The defendant patrick Tiernay answered by way of a general denial, and then set up an equitable defense, praying for affirmative relief. Issues of fact were submitted to a jury, and on the incoming of a verdict the court made a decree divesting the plaintiffs of the title, and investing the same in defendant. The evidence is not preserved in the record before us, and the only question for our consideration is whether the decree is warranted by the pleadings. The answer of Patrick Tiernay sets up these facts: That his wife, Catherine, died in December, 1885; that the plaintiffs are her children by a former marriage; that in June, 1879, he became desirous of acquiring a home for himself and wife by having the title vested in them as an estate of entirety; that at the last-mentioned date he purchased the property described in the petition, it then being a vacant lot, from one Smithwick, and paid therefor out of his own funds the sum of $300; that he directed Smithwick to make the deed to himself and wife as joint grantees; that Smithwick or his agent, through some mistake or misapprehension, caused to be executed to defendant a deed describing the grantee therein as "Catherine Tiernay, wife of Patrick Tiernay;" that he was unable to read writing, or to read the deed, and requested the same to be read to him; that, upon hearing it read, he understood and was advised that the property was conveyed to his wife and to himself, and that the survivor would inherit the entire estate; that thereupon he caused the deed to be recorded, and with his own funds erected a house on the lot at a cost of $3,800; that he did not know that the property had been conveyed to his wife until after her death, and when this suit was brought; that he never agreed that the property should be conveyed to her alone, and never intended it as an advancement; and that his wife, during her life, made no claim to the property. The plaintiffs went to trial on this answer, without having demurred to it, and without having made any motion to require the defendant to make it more specific and definite; so that the objections that the answer does not show who read the deed to defendant, or who advised him that the property was thereby conveyed to himself and wife, must be disregarded. As the case is presented on this record, we must assume that every allegation was proved by the evidence offered on the trial.

The point pressed upon...