Hyland v. Hyland

• Decision Date: 26 March 1890
• Citation: 23 P. 811,19 Or. 51
• Parties: HYLAND v. HYLAND
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

23 P. 811

19 Or. 51

HYLAND v. HYLAND

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 26, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Lane county; R.S. BEAN, Judge.

The respondent commenced a suit in said court against the appellant, to reform a deed to certain real property situated in said county. She alleged in her complaint that, on the 27th day of November, 1885, the appellant Benjamin Hyland for a valuable consideraration the respondent, bargained and sold to the said real property, consisting of 170 acres of land; that said appellant promised and agreed with her to execute a deed conveying to her said land during her natural life, and the remainder to her heirs and assigns forever that on or about said time said appellant executed and delivered to her a deed of conveyance to said land, but the following words, to-wit, "and then to her heirs and assigns forever," were by mutual mistake omitted from the deed; and that, at the time said deed was executed, said appellant, in the presence of respondent, instructed and directed the person who wrote the deed and took the acknowledgment thereof to insert therein the words, to the said respondent "during her natural life, and then to her heirs and assigns forever," but the officer, or justice of the peace, who wrote the deed, failed through mistake to write in the said words. The respondent alleged that she relied upon the word of the said appellant, and being ignorant of that kind of business, did not read said deed, and that the said omission and mistake were not noticed or found out by her and said appellant until a short time before; that the said appellant put her into the possession of the said premises, and that she had been in the absolute possession of the same since the execution of the said deed that immediately after finding out the said mistake in said deed she applied to said appellant to correct it, but that he refused and still refuses to do so. The respondent further alleged that on or about the _____ day of _______, 1887, the said appellant Benjamin Hyland, without any valuable consideration, made, executed, and delivered a pretended deed of conveyance to said premises to the appellant Amos D Hyland, which was without a valuable consideration and was fraudulent. The said complaint contained a prayer for relief; that the said Benjamin Hyland be decreed to correct the said deed by adding and inserting therein the said words, and that the said deed to said Amos D. Hyland be declared void and of no effect, and be set aside; and for such other and further relief as might seem equitable and just. The appellant Benjamin Hyland filed an answer to the said complaint denying the agreement to convey the land as therein alleged; denying that the said words, "and then to her heirs and assigns forever," were omitted from the deed through mistake; denying that he instructed or directed the person who wrote the deed to insert the said words therein; denying that said person inadvertently or through mistake omitted or failed to write the said words therein, or that said respondent relied upon the words of said appellant, or that, being ignorant of business of the kind, she did not read said deed; and denied all the material allegations in the complaint. Said appellant also denied that the deed made by him to Amos D. Hyland was made without any valuable consideration, and alleged that he made, executed, and delivered said last-mentioned deed in good faith. The said appellant Amos D. Hyland also filed an answer to the said complaint denying all the material allegations therein contained; and for further and separate answer to the said complaint alleged that the deed made to him by the said Benjamin Hyland was for a valuable consideration, and that he, without any knowledge or notice of any mistake or omission in said deed to said respondent, and without any knowledge or notice of any fraudulent intent of said Benjamin Hyland, or knowledge or notice of any fraud rendering void the title of said Benjamin Hyland to said premises, purchased the same in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and was the absolute owner in fee-simple thereof, subject only to the life-estate of said respondent. The said respondent filed replies to the new matter contained in said respective answers, denying the same. The case was referred to a referee to take and report the testimony therein, and the same was thereafter heard by the court upon the report of the said referee, which found that the equities were with the respondent, and that she was entitled to the relief demanded in her complaint. Upon which finding the decree appealed from was entered.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A complaint in a suit to reform a written instrument in consequence of a mistake in its execution must allege facts. It must show what the parties to the instrument mutually agreed to do, and wherein the writing fails to express their agreement, and that the mistake did not occur through any carelessness or negligence of the plaintiff; otherwise a demurrer to the complaint should be sustained.

. Where the plaintiff, a married woman, in a suit against her husband, as defendant, to have reformed a certain deed executed by him to her, alleged in her complaint that, for a valuable consideration, the defendant bargained and sold to her certain real property; that he promised and agreed with her that he would execute and deliver a deed conveying to her the said property during her natural life, and then to her heirs and assigns forever; and that the defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a deed of conveyance to the property, but by mutual mistake the words "and then to her heirs and assigns forever" were omitted from the deed; that the defendant instructed and directed the person who wrote the deed to insert the said words, but he inadvertently and through mistake omitted to write in the same; that the plaintiff relied upon the word of the defendant, and, being ignorant of business of that kind, did not read the deed, nor find out the mistake until a short time before bringing the suit,-- held, that the complaint was faulty in not stating the terms of the agreement between the parties which the deed was given to effectuate, but that the fault only constituted a defective statement of cause of suit, and not a defective cause of suit; and that therefore the defendant waived the defect by filing an answer to the complaint.

In order to defeat an outstanding equity in real property by a plea that the defendant was the purchaser of the property in good faith, he must set forth in his answer the deed of purchase, the date, parties, and contents briefly; that the vendor was seised...