Fischer v. Dent
Decision Date | 02 June 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 16510.,16510. |
Citation | 167 S.W. 977,259 Mo. 86 |
Parties | FISCHER v. DENT. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dent County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.
Suit by Emily M. Fischer against E. F. Dent and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
J. J. Cope, of Salem, for appellant. Wm. P. Elmer, of Salem, for respondent.
This is a suit by the plaintiff against E. F. Dent, Mary A. Judson, Nathaniel D. Hobson, and Earl A. Seay, defendants, to reform a deed made by the plaintiff April 27, 1907, to Hobson and Seay purporting to convey to them all the portion of lots 2 and 3 of block 15 west side of the creek in the city of Salem, Dent county, Mo., described as follows, to wit:
"Commencing thirty-five feet east of the northwest corner of said lot two, thence east twenty-five and a half feet, thence south one hundred and sixty-five feet, to the south line of lot three, thence west twenty-five and a half feet, thence north one hundred and sixty-five feet, to the place of beginning."
It will be observed that this description covers the east 25½ feet of the west 60½ feet of said lots 2 and 3 in block 15. It fronts north on Fourth street and south on Third street. The plaintiff contends, and so states in substance in her petition, that this description was a mistake and that the deed was intended by both parties to convey, and should have conveyed, the east 23¼ feet of said 60½ feet.
The plaintiff acquired the title to the 60½ feet by devise from her late husband, Louis Fischer, who died about the year 1897. He acquired the 25½ feet described in this deed from E. L. Dye in 1880, and erected a brick building on the north end of it flush with the east line, and 23¼ feet wide and extending south from Fourth street on which it fronted, about 70 feet; thus leaving a strip west of the building 2¼ feet wide. In 1886 he acquired the 35 feet adjoining it on the west and extending to the west line of lots 2 and 3. He then erected on that part of his land west of the first building another building afterward called Fischer Opera House, which extended 113 feet south from the south line of Fourth street and occupied the entire 37½ feet west of the first building constructed, which was commonly known as Fischer's little store. The walls of these two buildings were independent, although in actual contact, for a distance of 60 feet south from Fourth street. Thence to the south end of the little store, the wall of the Opera House building was used as a common wall. The little store lot was vacant south of the south end of the building, except that about 20 feet of the south end was occupied by a warehouse of the same width as the store. At the time of the sale to Hobson and Seay, the store purchased by them was occupied by Murray, Bryson & Co., who attorned to the purchasers and remained in possession; while the Opera House building was occupied by one Selby, who kept the store which occupied the first story, and ran...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Haberman
...answer, equitable relief was affirmatively sought and the evidence is more than sufficient to support the court's findings. Fischer v. Dent, 259 Mo. 86, 167 S.W. 977; Maze v. Boehm, 281 Mo. 507, 220 S.W. 952; Dent v. Hobson, 189 Mo. App. 140, 175 S.W. 289; 45 Am. Jur., sec. 55, p. 617; Weis......
-
Krick v. Thompson
...with the contract actually made because of mutual mistake in describing the land agreed upon as sold. [Which was true in Fischer v. Dent, 259 Mo. 86, 167 S.W. 977, cited relied upon by defendant.] Instead, defendant only conveyed what was already mortgaged to plaintiff, which was exactly wh......
-
Maze v. Boehm
...the claim of each, and was for that reason evidence of their intention in the transaction which was the origin of that claim." Fischer v. Dent, 259 Mo. 91. C. Railey and White, CC., concur. OPINION MOZLEY, C. -- This is an action brought by plaintiff against defendants to recover possession......
-
Maze v. Boehm
...555, 77 Pac. CO; Lansing v. Ins. Co., 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 140, 03 N. W. 758; Corrigan v. Tierney, 100 Mo. 277, 13 S. W. 401; Fischer v. Dent, 259 Mo. 86, 167 S. W. 977. It is true, as contended by appellant, that the burden of proof is on the party asserting the mistake and its mutuality as wel......