Keith v. Woodruff

• Decision Date: 14 January 1902
• Citation: 34 So. 911,136 Ala. 443
• Parties: KEITH ET AL. v. WOODRUFF. [a1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 911

136 Ala. 443

KEITH ET AL. v. WOODRUFF. ^[a1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 14, 1902

Appeal from Chancery Court, Talladega County; Richard B. Kelly Chancellor.

Bill by Sarah E. Woodruff against Joseph Keith and others for the reformation of a deed for mistake. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

The prayer of the bill was as follows: "May it please your honor to correct and reform said conveyance of date of the 22d February, 1894, so as to make it conform to the true intent of the grantors therein, when they executed the same so that said Joseph Keith shall only take thereunder one hundred and five acres of land off the north side of the said Susan Keith tract of land, and that this court will have the southern line of this one hundred and five acres, 'to wit, the dotted line, E, F, shown on said map,' established and marked with permanent monuments, and will so reform said deed of conveyance as that it will not convey to said Joseph Keith any lands of your oratrix held and owned by her at the time said conveyance was made in severalty; and that the said Joseph Keith and wife, Mollie Keith, be required and decreed to convey to your oratrix all of said ten acres off the south side of the S.W. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of section 9, T. 20, R. 3. *E., in Talladega county; and that said Emma O. Keith, Lucian J. Keith, and Susie S. Ryder be declared and decreed to have taken no right or interest in or to said ten acres, by or under said quitclaim executed to them and your oratrix by said Joseph Keith and wife, of date March 13, 1894; and that said Joseph Keith and wife, Mollie Keith, be required and decreed to reconvey to your oratrix the undivided five-eighths interest in and to all of the Susan Keith tract of land described in the first section of this bill, except the one hundred and five acres off the north side of the said Susan Keith tract, which was conveyed and intended to be conveyed to said Joseph Keith as in the bill is shown." It was then further prayed that, in the event said Joseph Keith and wife failed or refused to make the conveyance that might be decreed by the court, a decree be rendered divesting out of Joseph Keith and wife all such title and right to the land as the court might adjudge rightfully belonged to the complainant, and invest such title in the complainant.

On the submission of the cause on the pleadings and proof, the chancellor decreed that the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for, and ordered accordingly. From this decree the respondents appeal, and assign the rendition thereof as error.

Brown &amp Dryer, for appellants.

Sam'l Will John and Knox, Bowie & Dixon, for appellee.

SHARPE J.

This suit has for its main object the reformation of a deed executed by complainant and others, who are made defendants to the defendant Joseph Keith. All other relief sought is incidental to and dependant upon such reformation. The controversy is outlined by the following prominent facts Joseph and Susan Keith, both now deceased, were parents of complainant and defendant Joseph Keith, and of William Keith, who died, leaving as his heirs the other defendants herein. In 1868, lands of the estate of Joseph Keith, consisting of a large tract in one body, were by proceedings in the probate court partitioned between his widow and the three children, to each of whom was assigned a tract described in the commissioners' report by metes and bounds. The northernmost tract, which the commissioners numbered "4" and estimated at 717 acres, was allotted to defendant Joseph Keith. Adjoining and south of number 4 lay a tract numbered 3, estimated at 410 acres, which was set apart to Susan Keith, the widow. This tract numbered 3 lay partly in section 9, and was bisected by the section line forming the southern boundary of that section. To complainant was assigned a tract adjoining her mother's, and which at one point extended northward so as to include 10 acres in the southern part of section 9. In 1884, complainant and William Keith received a conveyance from their mother of tract No. 3, and, William dying, his title passed to his four children, one of whom sold her interest to complainant, who thereupon claimed an undivided interest of five-eighths in that tract. In March, 1892, Susan Keith died, and defendant Joseph Keith thereafter set up a claim to an interest in tract 3, basing it upon the contention that the conveyance from his mother to complainant and William was procured by undue influence; and he urged, also, that the tract originally allotted to him was smaller than the commissioners estimated it to be. Through his attorney, W. P. Oden, he proposed, by letters to complainant, to accept in settlement of his claim a part of tract 3, which in the letter was designated as follows: "A strip about 150 yards wide down to the section or U.S. land line along and parallel with his the whole length from Mrs. Butts' to the river. * * * This would be a strip 150 yards wide or about that off the north side of what you and your brother William got a deed to from your mother in 1884 making his corner to the section line instead of to a made line which he claims was a mistake in the surveyor." Further negotiations resulted in the signing and acknowledging by complainant, and her co-owners, of a conveyance, to defendant Joseph Keith, of land the description of which is to be gathered from the following recital, viz.: "Know all men by these presents that we, Sarah E. Woodruff, Lucius J. Keith, Emma O. Keith, Susie J. Ryder and her husband Jesse W. Ryder, for and in consideration of an exchange of whatever right, title and interest we or either of us now own jointly and...