Hand v. Cox

• Citation: 164 Ala. 348,51 So. 519
• Parties: HAND v. COX.
• Decision Date: 13 January 1910
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

51 So. 519

164 Ala. 348

HAND v. COX.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1910

Appeal from Chancery Court, Mobile County; Thomas H. Smith Chancellor.

Suit by B. E. Cox against Thomas C. Hand. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed, as corrected.

Frederick G. Bromberg, for appellant.

Elliott G. Rickarby, for appellee.

EVANS J.

1. The bill of complaint in this case was filed in the Mobile chancery court, and sought the reformation of a deed as to the description of the lands therein conveyed. The equity of the bill and the right to have the deed reformed as to the description of the lands therein conveyed depend upon one of two propositions, either one of which, if properly alleged in the bill and clearly established by the evidence, entitles the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. As said in Pomeroy's Equity (3d Ed.) § 1376: "Equity has jurisdiction to reform written instruments in but two well-defined cases: (1) 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; (2) 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." So far as the bill of complaint in this is concerned, from the facts alleged, it plainly appears either that there was a mutual mistake or that the complainant was mistaken and that there was fraud or other inequitable conduct on the part of the respondent in regard to the description of the land in the deed executed by respondent to complainant. It could make no difference which one may conclude to have been the fact from the allegations of the bill. The equity would be the same, and the relief to which complainant would be entitled would be the same. From the foregoing statement it will readily appear that the demurrer to the bill was without merit, and was properly overruled.

2. In cases of this kind, where equity will grant the affirmative relief of reformation, it requires that the evidence shall place beyond reasonable controversy the fact that such a mistake was made, and, until this is done, the writing must remain the sole expositor of the intent and agreement of the parties. Hinton v. Citizens' Mutual Ins. Co., 63 Ala. 488; Turner v. Kelly, 70 Ala. 85; Campbell v. Hatchett, 55 Ala. 548; Tyson v. Chestnut, 100 Ala. 571, 13 So. 763. Such is the case unless the mistake is admitted by the opposite party. Moore v. Tate, 114 Ala. 582, 21 So. 820. On an examination of the evidence in this case, we think it clearly appears that complainant understood that he was buying the land up to the public road including the field known as the "old Joe Hall field," that in fact these were the inducements which led him to make the purchase, and that he thought and understood that all this was included in the description of the land in the deed. All the evidence tends to show this--both the conversations had with respondent by him before and at the time of the sale and his conduct...