Crookston Imp. Co. v. Marshall

• Decision Date: 25 May 1894
• Citation: 59 N.W. 294,57 Minn. 333
• Parties: CROOKSTON IMP. CO. v. MARSHALL ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

57 Minn. 333

59 N.W. 294

CROOKSTON IMP. CO.

v.MARSHALL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 25, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Evidence held sufficient to justify the reformation of a deed.

2. Although the terms of a deed are stated according to the intention of both parties, yet a reformation may be had if they were in error in respect of the thing to which these terms apply.

3. The mistake of one party, accompanied by fraud or other inequitable conduct of the other party, may be good ground for the reformation of a written instrument.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; Frank Ives, Judge.

Action by the Crookston Improvement Company against Annie L. Marshall and others to reform a deed. Verdict for the plaintiff. From an order refusing a new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

A. A. Miller, for appellants.

H. Steenerson, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The only question in this case is whether the evidence justified the decision of the trial court that plaintiff was entitled to a reformation of its deed to defendants, having in mind the rule that to entitle a party to such relief the proofs must be clear, satisfactory, and convincing,-that a mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice. The situation will be readily under stood by reference to the plat on page 165 of the paper book.

One Bjornstad (plaintiff's grantor) owned government lots 6 and 7 in section 25, and lot 4 in section 30, lot 4 lying immediately east of lots 6 and 7. He platted Sampson's Woodland addition to Crookston as on lots 6 and 7, the east line of the addition being supposed and intended to be the line between those lots and lot 4, but, as staked out on the ground, the plat in fact extended, as has since been ascertained, from 40 to 75 feet eastward over upon lot 4. When the survey was made, stakes were stuck at the corners of the lots and blocks, including those on the east line of the plat. What was east of the platted portion was marked “Reserved for Park,” and was supposed to comprise the whole of lot 4. All of this property, both platted and unplatted, was subsequently conveyed to defendant, which had, prior to the deed in controversy, conveyed several of the lots on the east side of the plat to various parties, who had erected houses and made other improvements thereon. The transaction between the parties to this suit was entirely conducted on behalf of the plaintiff by one Sampson, its president, and on behalf of the defendants by one Munch. The evidence is very strong to the effect that what Sampson agreed and intended to convey was the unplatted portion...