Hancock v. Dodd

• Decision Date: 13 January 1896
• Citation: 36 S.W. 742
• Parties: HANCOCK et al. v. DODD et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

36 S.W. 742

HANCOCK et al. v. DODD et al.

Court of Chancery Appeals of Tennessee.

January 13, 1896.

Appeal from chancery court, Cannon county; W. S. Bearden, Chancellor.

Bill by A. L. Hancock and others against William Dodd and others to reform certain deeds, and for other relief. The bill was dismissed, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

St. John & Cummings, for appellants. James A. Jones, for appellees.

BARTON, J.

This is a bill filed to reform two deeds and recover a tract of land. The facts on which the relief is sought are practically undisputed, and are as follows: On the 3d day of November, 1890, complainant Alford L. Hancock made a deed of gift conveying a tract of land unto his grandchildren, who were the children and heirs at law of R. M. Hancock, deceased, to wit: S. F. Dodd, wife of H. L. Dodd, and Pleny Dodd and Minnie Dodd, children and heirs at law of Eliza Dodd, deceased, who was formerly Eliza Hancock, and daughter of said R. M. Hancock, and J. T. Hancock, R. T. Hancock, and A. M. Hancock, sons of R. M. Hancock. When the deed was first written and entered of record, the language used was: "I, Alford L. Hancock, have this day executed a deed of gift to R. M. Hancock, deceased, to his heirs, to wit, J. T. Hancock and R. T. Hancock and Eliza Dodd, now dead, and her two children, and Joseph Dodd, her husband, and S. F. Hancock, wife of H. L. W. Dodd, and A. M. Hancock (the consideration is $2,000.00), containing 235 acres," — describing the land, with the usual habendum clause, and covenants. R. M. Hancock, at the time of his death, lived upon the land, and after his death his children continued to occupy the premises, until November 3, 1890, when complainant Alford L. Hancock, the owner of the land, made the deed above mentioned. The heirs of said R. M. Hancock continued in possession of the land until May, 1892, when, by agreement, they selected commissioners to partition the land among themselves. The commissioners met and read the deed made by complainant Alford L. Hancock to the children and heirs of R. M. Hancock, and discussed the question as to what interest White Dodd, the husband of S. F. Dodd, and J. J. Dodd, the husband of Eliza Dodd, had in the land. Seeing, from the face of the deed, they had none, and a question having arisen how the minor children of J. J. Dodd could be represented, and having requested their father to represent them as guardian, and he declining to do so, and saying he would move off the land if he had no interest in it, they called on complainant Alford L. Hancock to know if it was his intention to entirely cut off the interest of the said two Dodds, sons-in-law of decedent R. M. Hancock, in the land. The commissioners at the time told complainant A. L. Hancock that, by adding the word "and" between the name of the Dodds and their wives in the deed, it would give them a life estate in the land, which he was willing to do. And, upon this suggestion, in order to create a life estate in the lands, the word "and" or mark "&" was added, it being represented to and understood by him that this would give the two Dodds life estates in their wives' shares in said land. This addition made the deed read as follows: "I, Alford L. Hancock, have this day executed a deed of gift to R. M. Hancock, deceased, to his heirs, to wit, J. T. Hancock and R. T. Hancock and Eliza Dodd, now dead, and her two children, and Joseph Dodd, her husband, and S. F. Hancock, wife of and H. L. W. Dodd, and A. M. Hancock." A. L. Hancock consented that the change be made with this understanding, and it was made by one of the commissioners or the surveyor, but not by him, nor in his presence, nor did he ever after sign or acknowledge the deed so changed. After this was done the land was divided by the commissioners, and partition deeds were executed by the parties. On the 18th day of May, 1892, J. J. Dodd, R. T. Hancock, Mamie Hancock, J. T. Hancock, S. J. Hancock, and A. M. Hancock executed a deed reciting that, "whereas, A. L. Hancock having made a deed of gift to the heirs of Monroe Hancock, we, the undersigned, have agreed to divide said tract of land by the assistance of five commissioners, to wit, L. L. Melton, J. B. Collins, J. C. Spurlock, Wm. Grizle, and E. T. Haley. We hereby convey unto H. L. W. Dodd, and wife, Sarah F. Dodd, formerly Fannie Hancock, forever, for the consideration of other lands deeded to us this day, a certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in the state of Tennessee, Cannon county [setting out the boundaries], to have and to hold the above described land unto the said White Dodd and wife, Fannie Dodd, and heirs, forever, as their share in said lands as divided." This was done in pursuance of the partition agreed on. The partition deeds were drawn by the surveyor, at the direction of the parties, and were signed up by them without being read over, and were understood by all to convey to each their respective rights and interests in the land, and to the two Dodds only life estates in the land. There is, we think, no question about this, and, after the deeds were made, it is made perfectly clear by the proof that H. L. W. Dodd thought and understood that he had only a life estate in the land. Sarah Dodd, wife of H. L. W. Dodd, died in March, and he died in April, 1894. They had had and left no children. Complainants J. T., A. M., and R. T. Hancock were the heirs at law of Sarah Dodd, being her brothers, and the defendants were the heirs at law of H. L. W. Dodd, and William Dodd was his administrator. The insolvency of the estate of H. L. W. Dodd was suggested by the administrator, though the administrator files a statement showing personal assets amounting to $308.47, and claims filed amounting to $330.49. He shows, on cross-examination, that among the claims filed is one for $60, probably barred by the statute of limitations. This would reduce the debt that much, and leave the personal assets probably sufficient to pay off claims. But it is shown that it is not known whether all claims are filed, and that the claims now filed are entitled to some addition for interest. The expenses of administration are not shown, and it would seem probable that there would be some excess of claims and expenses over personal assets on hand, which may render it necessary to resort to the real assets of H. L. W. Dodd's estate for the payment of such balance. And while it does not clearly appear, as stated, it is inferable that there is no other real property belonging to his estate, except that in litigation.

The bill in this cause was filed on the 24th of May, 1894, about two months after the death of said H. L. W. Dodd, and immediately after complainants found there would be a claim on behalf of the Dodd estate to the land, and the prayer is that the deeds be reformed, and the title to the land claimed by defendants as heirs of H. L. W. Dodd, to be vested in the heirs of R. M. Hancock. The theory of the bill seems to be that the insertion of the word "and" in the original deed made by A. L. Hancock conferred a life estate on H. L. W. Dodd, and that this and the partition deed were all made under a mistake and misunderstanding, contrary to the wishes, intents, and purposes of the parties. The bill is filed by Alford M. Hancock, the maker of the first deed, and by J. T., A. M., and R. T. Hancock, who joined in the partition deed of May 18, 1892; and the relief sought is to have said deeds reformed, and to recover the interest which is supposed to have gone to H. L. W. Dodd and his estate, on the ground of a mistake made in the deed. The defendants are the heirs of H. L. W. Dodd, and claim the land as such, and William Dodd is his administrator, and claims the right to have the land sold as such to pay debts. The complainants R. T. Hancock, A. M. Hancock, and J. T. Hancock are brothers of and heirs at law of Mrs. Sarah Dodd, who was the wife of H. L. W. Dodd. The two children of Eliza Dodd, who are not made parties to the cause, are also heirs at law of Sarah Dodd. It is not clearly stated in the bill in what capacity the complainants sue, but the facts all appear as above stated from the bill and the record; and the prayer is that the deeds be reformed, and the title to this land vested in the heirs of R. M. Hancock, and for general relief; and the question is, under these facts as here given, are the complainants entitled to any relief? Chancellor Bearden held they were not, and dismissed complainants' bill, holding that the deed of A. L. Hancock conveyed no interest to the Dodds, and that the insertion of the character "&" in the deed and register's record had no such effect, and therefore said deed needed no reformation; and, second, that the mistake in the partition deed to H. L. W. Dodd and wife is not one of fact but one of law, has caused no loss to the bargainors, and is not remediable in equity. Complainants appealed, and assign errors. Are they entitled to any relief?

1. As to the first deed made by A. L. Hancock, and the alterations made in it with his consent, and the effect of such alteration: It seems clear that the deed of A. L. Hancock was originally made, in exact accordance with the grantor's intention, to his grandchildren, the children and heirs at law of R. M. Hancock, deceased. It had been delivered and registered. All title and interest he had in the land had passed out of him, and he had no further interest to convey, and no more right to change or alter it than a stranger, and nothing that he could do, direct, or assent to could change the effect of his original deed. There was nothing left in him to convey. Gates v. Card, 93 Tenn. 339, 340, 24 S. W. 486. And see 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 424, 425, and authorities there cited.

2. As to the partition deed: The parties had had the first deed under discussion, and the surveyor, after the grandfather had made or consented to the alteration, the supposed effect of which was to give H. L. W. Dodd a...