Duvall v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 07 April 1894 |
| Citation | 53 Kan. 291,36 P. 330 |
| Parties | DUVALL v. SIMPSON et ux. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
While the lapse of time will bar equitable relief against a mistake made in describing land intended to be conveyed, the period of limitation will not begin to run until the discovery of the mistake, or until the time at which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, it might have been discovered.
Error from district court, Norton county; Louis K. Pratt, Judge.
Action by Mahilda A. Duvall against William Simpson and Emma Simpson, his wife, to correct a mutual mistake in a deed. From a judgment sustaining demurrer to the petition plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
L. H Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
J. R. Hamilton, for defendants in error.
The purpose of this action was to rectify a mutual mistake in describing lands, in a deed of conveyance, which had been purchased by plaintiff from defendants. The averments of the petition are to the effect that, according to the understanding and agreement of the parties, a much larger quantity of land was purchased than was described in the conveyance. The purchase was made and the conveyance executed on December 4, 1884; and the plaintiff alleged that she supposed and believed that she had received a conveyance of the quantity of land agreed upon and intended to be conveyed until about April 1, 1887, when the mistake was discovered. Soon thereafter, and within a reasonable time, she notified defendants of the mistake in the description, and demanded that the conveyance should be rectified in accordance with the mutual understanding and agreement of the parties, but the demand has not been acceded to by defendants. The legal title to the land intended to be conveyed, and not included in the conveyance, has remained in the defendants, so that the rights of third parties have not intervened, and would not be affected by a correction of the alleged mistake. This action was begun on January 24, 1890; and, upon demurrer to the averments of the petition, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.
It is contended that the lapse of time is a bar to the correction of the conveyance, and it is said that this was the ground upon which the district court rested its decision. It is claimed that the five-years statute of limitations applies in a case of this character, and that, as five years and one month elapsed from the execution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Law v. Law Co.
...acknowledged that the accrual-on-discovery rule had been applied in two cases that also dealt with mistakes in deeds— Duvall v. Simpson, 53 Kan. 291, 36 Pac. 330 (1894), overruled by Regier, 139 Kan. at 183, 30 P.2d 136, and Coal Co. v. Miller, 88 Kan. 763, 129 Pac. 1170 (1913), overruled b......
-
Pinkham v. Pinkham
... ... is not barred because of lapse of time after the cause of ... action accrued. In Duvall v. Simpson, 53 Kan. 291, ... 36 P. 330, it is held: "While the lapse of time will bar ... equitable relief against a mistake made in describing ... ...
-
Regier v. Ameranda Petroleum Corporation
... ... 639, and a long line of recent cases ... following it, operated as a bar to reform the contract, and ... that the earlier case of Duvall v. Simpson, 53 Kan ... 291, 36 P. 330, and another case following it, have been ... overruled ... 4. The ... findings of fact of the ... ...
-
The City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson
... ... action existed did not create an implied exception to the ... statute. On the other hand, in the case of Duvall v ... Simpson, 53 Kan. 291, 36 P. 330, which was instituted ... originally to correct a mistake made in describing the land ... intended to be ... ...