Craddock v. Short
| Decision Date | 02 June 1896 |
| Parties | Craddock, Appellant, v. Short |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. -- Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge.
Affirmed.
James B. Harrison and Thomas M. Jones for appellant.
(1) The judgment in this cause is erroneous. It divests the plaintiff of all right, title, and interest to all the lands described in his deed from the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. The issues in this cause only involve the title to lots 13 and 14, in block 63, and Eleventh street, which runs or did run through the north end of said land, being a part of southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 8 township 37, range 12. Therefore the judgment must be reformed to correspond with the pleadings and evidence in the case. (2) As a general proposition mutual mistakes are corrected by equity, but there is a distinction and a wide difference in mutual mistakes, and an exception to this rule is clearly in our favor under the facts and circumstances in this case. "Where the seller and purchaser together examine a corner, and open lines through a tract of land with equal faculties of observation, and make a mutual mistake as to the exact line, both being of the opinion that the lines include particular locations, whilst they actually only include a part of it, it was held that the contract could not be avoided for such a mistake." "And a mistake which is a result of ignorance on the part of both parties of a fact of which it is equally within the power of both to obtain proper information and when each has acted in good faith, equity will not grant relief and correct such a mistake." Hill v. Busch, 19 Ark. 522; Wood v. Patterson, 4 Md. Ch. 335; Bank v. Bank, 10 Bush (Ky.), 699. "Plaintiff can not maintain an action where he or those under whom he claims are privies to the mistake unless the recovery which he sought would leave the defendant in statu quo, or unless the defendant has been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation." Matthews v Kansas City, 80 Mo. 231. "Where there is a mutual mistake, and one party or the other is compelled to lose, the party having the legal right must prevail." Koontz v. Bank, 51 Mo. 275. "Equity will not relieve against a mistake when the party complaining had within his reach the means of ascertaining the true state of facts, and without being induced thereto by the other party, neglected to avail himself of the opportunity of information." Brown v. Fagan, 71 Mo. 563. Applying these principles to the facts and circumstances in this case, how will equity deprive and divest James Craddock of his legal rights and cause him to lose $ 50 when he is not guilty nor privy to any fraud or misrepresentation?
L. F Parker and J. T. Woodruff for respondent.
The mistake is not in the amount of land sold, or the quantity, but is a mistake in description. The plaintiff got what he intended to buy, what he thought he had bought, in fact, all that he expected, and all he paid for. In other words, it was the understanding and intention of the parties that the conveyance to the plaintiff should carry only that portion of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 8, which was south of the platted portion of the town of Crocker, as laid out upon the ground, which is that portion south of Eleventh street. If this was the intention it must govern to the exclusion of the description or the boundaries named. Jamison v. Fopiano, 48 Mo. 194; Evans v. Green, 21 Mo. 170; Kronenberger v. Hoffner, 44 Mo. 185; Hook v. Craighead, 32 Mo. 405. Although the deed upon its face conveyed lots 13 and 14, according to an accurate survey, yet if it was clearly the intention of the parties that the plaintiff should only have that portion of the land lying south of Eleventh street, then a court of equity will, upon the answer and the evidence in this case, correct the deed so as to properly describe the land intended to be conveyed. Sweet v. Owen, 109 Mo. 1, and cases cited. It seems to us that a fair way to test the rights of the parties in this case, would be to decide this question the same as if it was between the defendant and the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. The evidence contained in the bill of exceptions is ample to warrant the finding of the lower court, and it being the practice of this court to defer to the finding of that court in equity cases, unless the preponderance of evidence is against it, we think the judgment should stand. Bartlett v. Brown, 121 Mo. 353.
Ejectment for all that part of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 8, township 37, of range 12, in Pulaski county, Missouri, lying west of the right of way of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway.
The petition is in the usual form.
The answer admits possession of the land, but denies all other allegations in the petition. It then sets up an equitable defense, and alleges that, on the twenty-first day of August 1869, the South Pacific Railway Company was the owner in fee simple of all of said southeast quarter of the southeast quarter, and also of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, and that on that day it laid off and platted in lots, blocks, streets, and alleys, and filed the same for record in the recorder's office of said county on the nineteenth day of October, 1869, the town of Crocker, "that in the said survey and plat the line dividing the said southeast quarter of the southeast quarter from the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, is shown as running along Eleventh street, as shown by said plat and survey; and lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, of block number 63, in said town of Crocker, are shown by said plat and survey to be entirely north of said line, and to be in the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter; that thereafter and prior to the fifteenth day of June, 1877, by a series of conveyances, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company became the owner of all the interest of the said South Pacific Railway Company in and to said property, and that on the second day of October, A. D. 1892, the said last named company by its contract of that date agreed to sell and did sell to this defendant the said lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, in said block 63, in the said town of Crocker; that said contract of purchase was made by this defendant, and the money paid thereon, and that said purchase was made upon actual view of said property and upon the faith of the accuracy of said plat; that the land described in plaintiff's petition was designated and pointed out to this defendant as lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, in block 63, and it was upon the faith of such pointing out, designation, and upon the accuracy of said plat and survey, that this defendant made his said purchase and took and received his said contract from said St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company; that said plat was and is inaccurate in this, to wit, that the said line dividing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial