Long v. Gilbert
| Decision Date | 24 December 1909 |
| Citation | 66 S.E. 894,133 Ga. 691 |
| Parties | LONG et al. v. GILBERT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where there is in fact a sale by one man to another, and by mutual mistake the property sold is erroneously described in the conveyance, equity will correct the mistake between the original parties and their privies in estate or in law except as against bona fide purchasers without notice.
(a) The evidence warranted the verdict.
Where A. obligated by bond to convey to the obligee land erroneously described by mistake, and the obligee assigned the bond to W. & Co., and, on payment of the purchase money and the surrender by W. of the bond, A. made a deed to W., in a suit by W.'s grantee against A. to reform the deed for mutual mistake in the description of the property (there being no demurrer), under the facts of the case a charge furnishes no ground for a new trial which treated as immaterial, so far as A. is concerned, whether the bond was assigned to W. or to W. & Co., when it does not appear that any other person except W. was interested in the firm of W. & Co.
The instruction of the court relative to notice, when taken in connection with the context, was not erroneous.
Where less than four years have intervened, and the plaintiff and those under whom he claims have been in actual possession all the time, though under a deed erroneously describing the property, and the defendant had not been prejudiced, and no issue of laches is made either by the pleadings or the evidence, the plaintiff is not barred of his relief on the ground of want of diligence.
An irrelevant charge will not cause a new trial, where it does not prejudice any right of the parties, and is not likely to mislead the jury from the true issues of the case.
Upon an issue as to whether there was a mistake in giving the correct number of the land lot, in an action to reform the deed for mutual mistake of the parties, it is competent to prove that the plaintiff had perfect paper title and possession of the particular lot conveyed, which was contiguous to the land lot alleged to have been actually bargained, but erroneously described.
Error from Superior Court, Polk County; Price Edwards, Judge.
Suit by R. H. Gilbert against James Long and others for the reformation of certain deeds, etc. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants Long and Scott bring error. Affirmed.
L. J Spinks and Janes & Hutchins, for plaintiffs in error.
J. L Tison and Mundy & Mundy, for defendant in error.
This is a suit brought by R. H. Gilbert against James Long, W. H. West, and Henry Scott, praying for the reformation of certain deeds and an injunction against the disturbance of the plaintiff's possession of a certain lot of land. According to the case made by the plaintiff's petition, on April 23, 1903, two contiguous lots of land, Nos. 251 and 252, both being in the Twenty-First district and Third section of Polk county, Ga., were owned and possessed, respectively, by Gilbert and Long, Gilbert owning lot 251 and Long owning 252. On that date Long bargained to Henry and Bert Atkins the west half of lot No. 252. Afterwards the Atkinses assigned their bond for title to W. J. West & Co., who paid the purchase money to Long, and on December 15, 1905, Long conveyed the land to W. J. West, who on October 31, 1906, conveyed it to the plaintiff. The vendees of James Long and their grantees have been in continuous possession of the west half of lot No. 252 since the execution by Long of his bond for title to the Atkinses. In each of the foregoing conveyances and transactions it was the intention of all the parties thereto to describe the land actually bargained, which was the west half of lot No. 252, but from accident or mistake the land in each of the conveyances was misdescribed as being the west half of lot 251. Recently the defendant Long has warned the plaintiff from further remaining in possession of the land, and has made a pretended sale of the west half of lot 252 to Henry Scott, who did not purchase the land in good faith, nor has he paid any of the purchase money. The prayer of the petition is to reform the deeds from Long to West and from West to Gilbert, so as to describe the property as the west half of lot No. 252, and to enjoin the defendants Scott and Long from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The defendants answered, and the case was tried, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants Long and Scott made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and they excepted.
1. Equity will correct mistakes between the original parties and their privies in estate or in law, except as against bona fide purchasers without notice. Wall v. Arrington, 13 Ga. 88; Wardlaw v. Mayer, 77 Ga. 625. The Code defines a mistake relievable in equity to be "some unintentional act, or omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence." Civ. Code 1895, § 3973. The testimony discloses that contemporaneously with their purchase the Atkinses went into possession of the western half of lot No 252, believing that they had bought the west half of 252, and they remained thereon, improving and cultivating the land, until they transferred their bond for title to West & Co. It was proved that their vendor, Long, admitted that he had sold the western half of lot 252 to the Atkinses and the other half to another person. Indeed, on the trial Long was introduced as a witness by the plaintiff, and admitted in his testimony that the Atkinses went into possession of the western half of lot 252, and that afterwards several parties applied to him to buy lot 252, and he always would say that it had been sold. It appeared that Henry Scott owned and lived on the eastern half of 252, and had agreed upon a division line between the Atkinses and himself. West bought with reference to the possession of the Atkinses. The testimony indubitably points to the conclusion that all the parties to the various conveyances were laboring under the impression at the time they were severally made that the land lot number was...
To continue reading
Request your trial