Jenner v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 16 December 1904
• Citation: 59 A. 508,77 Conn. 384
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JENNER v. BROOKS.

59 A. 508

77 Conn. 384

JENNER

v. BROOKS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 16, 1904.

Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; Frederick M. Peasley, Deputy Judge.

Suit by Charles A. Jenner against Walter Brooks for a conveyance or a reformation of deed. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Robert L. Munger, for appellant.

Charles G. Root, for appellee.

TORRANCE, C. J. The facts upon which the judgment in this case is based are in substance the following: In April. 1886, the plaintiff and defendant agreed to purchase, and pay for equally, a certain lot of land in Naugatuck belonging to one Conran, fronting on Galpin street. The title was to be taken in the defendant's name, and the land so bought was to be divided into two equal lots, one fronting on Galpin street, and the other—the rear lot—having no street front, was to have a right of way over the front lot; and the plaintiff was to have the rear, and the defendant the front lot. Pursuant to this agreement, the Conran land purchased by the plaintiff and defendant was conveyed to the defendant in April, 1886, and in May of the same year the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff the rear half of the Conran land, as agreed. In May, 1886, the plaintiff and defendant went into the exclusive possession of their respective lots. The defendant's deed to the plaintiff of said rear lot contained the following clause: "The meaning of this deed is that said grantee is to have one-half of the rear of the lot I bought of Patrick Conran, and also to give said grantee a roadway on and through the west side of my premises so that he can reach his lot." In August, 1886, the plaintiff and defendant, being desirous of enlarging their lots, agreed to purchase from Conran a strip of land 20 feet wide adjoining the northerly side of their respective lots, each to pay one-half of the price and to own one-half of the strip. Conran refused to sell the strip unless the plaintiff and defendant would first quitclaim to him their respective lots, and this they did on the 14th of August, 1886. Conran then, on the same day (by a deed hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit 2"), conveyed the land so quitclaimed to him, together with the 20-foot strip, to the defendant, who had theretofore agreed to convey to the plaintiff the rear half of the land thus conveyed to him by Conran. After this, on this same day, the defendant, intending to convey to the plaintiff the rear half of said land, delivered to the plaintiff the deed now in question, hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit A." Exhibit A by mistake was not sealed, and it did not convey to the plaintiff the half of the land conveyed to the defendant by Exhibit 2. The true rear half of said land has a north line of a trifle under 59 feet, and a south line of a trifle over 59 feet, and its west line passes through the well hereinafter mentioned; while in said deed said north and south lines were by mistake described as being each only 54 1/2 feet long, thus making said west line run east of the well, and giving to the defendant a strip of the rear half about 4 1/2 feet wide and 109 feet long. This well was dug in 1886, by the plaintiff and defendant, on what they then supposed was their dividing line, each paying one-half of the expense thereof. Both parties to Exhibit A supposed and believed that it conveyed to the plaintiff the rear half of the land described in Exhibit 2; both supposed that their dividing line ran nearly through the center of said well; and from 1886 to 1903 each, without objection from the other, was in the exclusive use and occupation of their respective lots up to said dividing line. In May, 1903, the plaintiff first knew that Exhibit A was not sealed, and that a mistake had been made therein as to the length of the north and south lines. He was informed of these things by the defendant, who then claimed to own a strip of said rear lot, next east of his own, about 4 1/2 feet wide and 109 feet long. The plaintiff then requested the defendant to affix a seal to said deed and correct said mistake, but this he refused to do.

The court is unable to find from the evidence whether the mistake as to the length of the north and south lines in Exhibit A was the mistake of the scrivener or of the parties, but it finds that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant to divide the land conveyed by Exhibit 2 equally "was never changed or modified," and that Exhibit A "did not convey the land intended by the grantor to be conveyed by him, and by the grantee to be received by him." Upon these facts the court reformed the deed to correspond with what it found to be the intention of both parties, and adjudged that, as so reformed, it should "speak and by relation take effect as of its original delivery, and as though the defendant's seal was affixed thereto." We think the facts found amply justify the judgment rendered, and the entire evidence, which is certified up, seems to justify the finding...