Green v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 11 July 1922
• Docket Number: 2958,2959.
• Citation: 113 S.E. 402,153 Ga. 738
• Parties: GREEN v. JOHNSON. JOHNSON v. GREEN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

113 S.E. 402

153 Ga. 738

GREEN v. JOHNSON.

JOHNSON v. GREEN.

Nos. 2958, 2959.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 11, 1922

Syllabus by the Court.

The verdict is contrary neither to the evidence nor to the law.

Grounds of a motion for new trial, complaining that the verdict is contrary to certain instructions of the court, are equivalent to an objection that the verdict is contrary to law, and are embraced in that single objection, for, if the charge be not law, the verdict will be upheld, though against the illegal charge.

Equity will not lend its aid to reform a written contract, because of mistake as to its contents on the part of a complaining party who was able to read, and fraud of the other party which consisted only in making false representations as to such contents, on which the complaining party relied as true because of confidence in the party making them, no confidential relation existing between the parties, and no sufficient excuse appearing why the complaining party did not read the instrument; but this principle does not apply to actions for the reformation of instruments which, by mutual mistake, do not evidence the true agreement of the parties.

In all cases where the form of the conveyance or instrument is, by mutual mistake, contrary to the intention of the parties in their contract, equity will interfere to make it conform thereto.

Reformation may be granted, even in cases of negligence by the party complaining, if it appear that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby.

The court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to testify that he gave to a real estate broker written authority to sell one-half of a certain lot, on the ground that the writing containing such authority was the best evidence of its existence; the witness not stating the contents of the writing, but the mere fact that such written authority had been given.

Parol evidence is admissible to prove a mutual mistake in a deed or any other written instrument.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; P. W. Meldrim, Judge.

Suit by Coleman Johnson against Lester Green. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error, and plaintiff brings a cross-bill of exceptions. Judgment affirmed, and cross-bill dismissed.

Coleman Johnson filed his petition against Lester Green, returnable to the October term, 1920, of Chatham superior court. He alleged: That on March 23, 1919, he placed in the hands of Stillwell Realty Company for sale that certain house and lot designated on the official map of the city of Savannah as the northern one-half of lot 133, Johnston ward. That the Stillwell Realty Company negotiated a sale thereof to the defendant, Lester Green, and executed to the purchaser a sale ticket thereto, in which the property is described as "797 Wolff street, in Johnston ward." That the house and lot described in the sale ticket as "797 Wolff street" is the same property as the northern half of lot No. 133, Johnston ward; said northern half extending from Wolff street to a high board fence dividing the whole of said lot exactly in half, and separating the northern half from the lot and houses on the southern half, which border on a lane and face in the opposite direction from the house on the northern half, and are known as 794 and 796 Hall Lane East. That on the same day when the sale ticket was executed petitioner and the defendant executed a certain agreement for title, based on the sale ticket, to cover the same property. That by error of the scrivener the property was described in said agreement for title as "lot one hundred and thirty-three (133), Johnston ward," instead of the northern half of lot 133, Johnston ward, as it should have been. That petitioner only intended and thought he was conveying the northern half of said lot. The defendant well knew that the agreement for title was only meant to cover the northern half of said lot 133, Johnston ward, with improvements thereon, and never had meant and did not mean to purchase the whole of said lot and the several houses thereon. That the defendant at once informed the tenant in the house on the northern half of said lot of the purchase and at once began to collect the rent therefrom, and several months later himself moved into the aforesaid house, and has been in the actual possession thereof since then; but the defendant did not then inform the tenants in the houses on the southern half of said lot that he was their landlord, nor did he attempt to go into possession thereof, nor to collect the rents therefrom, nor to make any demand on petitioner therefor, and it was not until some 12 months later that, being apprised of the error in the description, he attempted to collect the rents thereof, and made certain demands on petitioner for the possession of the same, and thereafter on April 16, 1920, placed on record the agreement for title. That at the time of the execution of the agreement for title petitioner did not own and was not in possession of the southern half of lot 133, Johnston ward, having conveyed the same to one George Clark, by deed dated September 12, 1913, of record in Chatham county, Book of Deeds 11-O, folio 97. That the amount shown in the agreement for title as consideration for the same is a reasonable price for the northern half of said lot, but is grossly inadequate to cover the purchase price of the whole of said lot and the improvements thereon, as the defendant then and there well knew or should have known. That when the error was called to petitioner's attention he at once called upon the defendant to execute a quitclaim deed for the southern half of said lot, or to destroy the agreement for title and execute a new one on the same terms and conditions, limited to the northern half of said lot, which the defendant refused and still refuses to do. Petitioner prayed that both copies of said agreement for title be so reformed as to express the intent of both parties, and so that, when reformed, the description should read as follows: All that said lot or parcel of land lying and being in the state of Georgia, county of Chatham, the northern half of lot No. 133, Johnston ward, and improvements thereon.

In his answer the defendant denied that petitioner placed with the Stillwell Realty Company for sale a house and lot, designated on the official map of the city of Savannah as the northern one-half of lot 133, Johnston ward. He admitted the execution of the sale ticket, and that in said ticket the property is described as "797 Wolff street, in Johnston ward." He denied that "797 Wolff street" is the same property as the northern half of lot 133, Johnston ward. He admitted the execution of the agreement for title, as set out in the petition. He denied that the property conveyed was, by error of the scrivener, described in the said agreement of title as "lot 133, Johnston ward," instead of the northern half of said lot. From lack of information he was unable to admit or deny that the plaintiff only intended and thought he was conveying the northern half of said lot. He denied that he knew that the agreement for title was only to cover the northern half of said lot and improvements thereon, and that he had never meant, and did not mean, to purchase the whole of said lot and the several houses thereon. He admitted that he at once informed the tenant in the house on the northern half of said lot of his purchase thereof and later on moved into the same, but denied that he did not then inform the tenants in the houses on the southern half of said lot that he was their landlord, that he did not attempt to go into possession thereof, nor to collect the rents therefrom, nor to make any demands on petitioner therefor; that it was not until some 12 months later, being apprised of the error in the description, he attempted to collect the rents thereon and make demands on petitioner for the collection of the same, and that thereafter, on April 16, 1920, he placed on record the said agreement for title. From lack of information he could neither admit nor deny the allegation that petitioner did not own and was not in possession of the southern half of lot No. 133, Johnston ward, having conveyed the same to one George Clark by deed dated September 12, 1913, etc. He denied that the amount shown in the agreement for title as consideration of the same is a reasonable price for the northern half of said lot, but is grossly inadequate to purchase the whole of said lot and the improvements thereon, as he then knew, or should have known. He admitted that the plaintiff called on him to execute a quitclaim deed to the southern half of said lot, or to destroy the agreement for title and to execute a new one on the same terms and conditions, limited to the northern half of said lot, and that he refused and still refuses to comply with said request. He further alleged that at the time he purchased the property in question he believed that he was buying the whole of said lot; that he was not advised of any adverse claim to any portion of said lot, and if he had known that he was negotiating for the northern half of said lot he would not have purchased the same for the price as agreed on by him, as said price was the full and fair value of the entire lot. By amendment the defendant admitted that the sale ticket was made to him, but denied that it was for the northern half of lot 133, Johnston ward, but, on the contrary, was for the entire lot.

On the trial the plaintiff testified that the agreement for title was signed by him, and he placed in the hands of the Stillwell Realty Company for sale the northern half of lot 133, Johnston ward, the street number of the same being 797 Wolff street. He gave the Stillwell Realty Company written authority to sell that one-half. He only...