Martz v. Jones

• Decision Date: 12 December 1947
• Docket Number: 54.
• Citation: Martz v. Jones, 189 Md. 416, 56 A.2d 30 (Md. 1947)
• Parties: MARTZ et ux. v. JONES et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

56 A.2d 30

189 Md. 416

MARTZ et ux. v. JONES et al.

No. 54.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 12, 1947

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carroll County; James E. Boylan, Jr. Chief Judge.

Suit by Frances I. Jones and others against George Maynard Martz and Ava Irene Martz, his wife, for reformation of a deed.From a decree granting reformation, defendants appeal.

Decree reversed without prejudice.

Ralph G. Hoffman, of Westminster, and Malcolm B Tebbs, of Baltimore, for appellants.

Joseph R. Byrnes, of Baltimore (A. Earl Shipley, of Westminster, and David P. Gordon and Levy, Byrnes and Gordon, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINSGRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

GRASON Judge.

The appellees in this case owned two pieces of property located on Springfield Avenue, in Sykesville, Carroll County Maryland.They sold one of these properties, improved by an apartment house, to the appellants.The other property, adjacent thereto, improved by a dwelling house and outbuildings, was occupied by them as a home.After the execution of the deed, dated August 7, 1945, by them to appellants, it was discovered what is alleged to be an error in the description of the property conveyed.

The bill in this case, filed by the appellees, in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, in Equity, avers that there was a mutual mistake made in the description of the land conveyed, and prays that the deed may be reformed so as to express the real intention of the parties.

Appellants, in their answer, deny there was a mutual mistake in the description of the property contained in the deed to them by the appellees, but, on the contrary, aver that the deed expresses the true intention of the parties.

The chancellor decreed that the deed be reformed, and appellants appealed.

The testimony of the appellees was that the appellants were directed to the property concerned by a real estate agent, and were told by him that appellees would reserve a part of the property.The appellants called to inspect the property on Sunday, August 6, 1945, and saw Miss Elsie S. Jones and Miss Ida W. Jones, two of the appellees.They were told by these ladies that they would reserve from the property twenty-one feet from the division line, to be used by them as a driveway.The ladies testified Mr. Martz (one of the appellants) stepped off twenty-one feet on Springfield Avenue, from a marker between the two properties.He went to a point in the rear of the property, sighted to the point he had stepped off, planted an iron pipe at that point in the rear, and said that line should be the new division line.That is, the line should run from the iron pipe to a point on Springfield Avenue twenty-one feet northwest of the marker, which marked at that time the division of the properties.Martz said he wanted a square lot.Miss Elsie S. Jones testified: 'Naturally, we thought we had reserved 21 feet to go straight through. * * * we decided to sell the apartment house, and reserve 21 feet for a driveway.'She said that when the appellants came to inspect the property, she asked Martz 'if Mr. Clark (the real estate agent) told them about the 21 feet we wanted to reserve, and he said, yes, he told them' and 'as soon as my sister, Ida, came home from Church services, * * * Mr. Martz and us two went out and marked off the line.He said emphatically he wanted a straight line.Mr. Martz stepped off 21 feet then looked to the rear of the lot and sighted to where Ida was standing, and then he picked up an iron pipe, * * * and drove it in the ground right where he wanted this line to come.Then he stuck a wooden stick in the pipe opening.We thought it would come up a few feet further on the other way.'

The testimony of Miss Ida W. Jones confirms her sister, and regarding the reservation she testified:

'Q.What you really wanted was 21 feet, not straight, but 21 feet in the back and in order to do that you had to get an irregular line?A.We had 21 feet reserved in the front.

'Q. And 21feet in the rear?A.And, we thought the 21-foot line went straight through'.

The witness Hardesty said he saw Martz remove the iron pipe, which Martz denied.

Martz testified that on the day he inspected the property the sisters told him they'wanted to reserve 21 feet in the front,' and he specified he'wanted a square line, a square lot.''We sighted back through there, as near as we could.'

'Q.When you sighted back to see where this line was going, did that sight lead you through the middle of their garage?A.Well, according to the amount of feet, it did.

'Q.Then, you looked through the middle of the garage; is that right?A.Yes, sir.

'Q.Yousighted that division line to go right on back through the middle of their garage?A.Wherever that amount of feet went.I wanted the same feet, the same width in the back, as I had in the front on Springfield Avenue.'

He did not call to the attention of the sisters that this line ran through the middle of their garage.This witness is uneducated and thought a square lot was the same as a rectangular lot.He'expected the division line to go between the two houses,' and 'about the same distance from the front of the house as it was from the back of the house.'

The evidence is that the house in which the sisters reside stands close to the line of division between the two properties, and they wanted the twenty-one foot reservation so their house would not be so close to the property conveyed, and to use the same for a driveway.The front of each house is roughly parallel to Springfield Avenue, but the side lines are not parallel to that Avenue.Both parties supposed these lines were parallel.Under the deed of August 7, 1945, the line between the properties runs, with reference to the house on the sisters' property, 'about 17 feet at the front porch, and out 10 feet at the corner of the house, and it comes in 8 feet to the chimney', and there is not space enough for a driveway.Then, too, it is clear they thought the reservation would include their garage.Manifestly they did not intend the line between the properties to run so close to their house, and to be insufficient for a driveway, nor that it would bisect their garage.The deed in question does not express the intention of the sisters.

The testimony of the appellees further shows that on September 9, 1945, Martz came to their home and said: 'There is something wrong about the line.* * * I don't want to cheat you people, * * * I want to have my straight line, I don't want a crooked line.'Martz made an equivocal denial of this, but there is testimony to show that he told the sisters to employ a surveyor and have the property surveyed, and that they engaged Mr. Koller, a surveyor, who did run the line as pointed out on the day the inspection was made by Martz, and Martz admitted he paid Koller for making this survey.

Koller ran the line that the sisters contend Martz...