Hammer v. Lange

• Decision Date: 21 November 1911
• Citation: 56 So. 573,174 Ala. 337
• Parties: HAMMER v. LANGE ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

56 So. 573

174 Ala. 337

HAMMER v. LANGE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 21, 1911

Appeal from Chancery Court, Cullman County; W. H. Simpson Chancellor.

Bill by J. F. C. Hammer against Robert Lange and another. Judgment for defendants, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

James A. Mitchell, for appellant.

F. E St. John, for appellees.

SIMPSON J.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, to have reformed a deed executed by the complainant.

The parties undertook to measure the lot with a tapeline starting from a certain fence which, it is now claimed, is not on the southern line of the lot intended to be conveyed. The deed does not mention the fence, but makes the southern line of the lot the base. It is not sought to reform the deed as to this southern line, but only as to the northern line. There is a conflict between the evidence on the part of the complainant, and that on the part of the respondent, as to how many feet the northern line was to be from the base line although they both agree that in making the measurements the fence was the point from which they measured. There is also some conflict as to how much English each party understood, yet we do not think the evidence bears out the claim of the complainant, that he was so deficient in the knowledge of English as to be incapable of understanding the purport of the deed which he made. A diagram of the land was made by the respondent, as it was measured, and both parties went to the scrivener with that diagram; and he testifies that he made the deed according to directions.

The testimony on the part of the complainant tends to show that, when the measurement was made, the distance called out was 43 feet 3 inches from the fence, and the testimony on the part of the respondent tends to show that it was 44 feet 3 inches from the fence. It seems to be taken for granted that the fence is about 1 foot south of the south line of the lot.

The cases in which instruments may be reformed are: "First, where there is a mutual mistake--that is, where there has been a meeting of minds, an agreement actually entered into, but the contract, deed, settlement, or other instrument, in its written form, does not express what was really intended by the parties thereto; and, second, where there has been a mistake of one party, accompanied by fraud or other inequitable conduct of the remaining parties. In such cases, the instrument may be made to conform to the agreement or transaction entered into, according to the intention of the parties." 4 Pom. Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 1376, p. 2725.

"The authorities all require that the parol evidence of the mistake and of the alleged modification must be most clear and convincing--in the language of some judges, 'the strongest possible'--or else the mistake must be admitted by the opposite party; the resulting proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt." 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 859, p. 1515.

This court has said: "To authorize the reformation of a contract which has...