Miller v. Morris

• Citation: 27 So. 401,123 Ala. 164
• Parties: MILLER ET AL. v. MORRIS ET AL.
• Decision Date: 29 October 1898
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

27 So. 401

123 Ala. 164

MILLER ET AL. v. MORRIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 29, 1898

Appeal from chancery court, Morgan county; William H. Simpson Chancellor.

Bill by W. M. Morris against Frank M. Miller and others, in which Edna Morris filed a cross bill, for the reformation of a deed and to restrain prosecution of a suit for breach of covenant of title therein. From a decree in favor of complainant and cross complainant, the other defendants appeal. Modified.

It was averred in the bill that on January 26, 1894, the complainant and his wife, Edna Morris, conveyed to the defendants Frank M. Miller and Callie A. Miller certain lands, among which was the S. 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 1, township 8, range 4 W., said deed containing the covenants of warranty. It was then averred in the bill that it was a deed intended by all the parties to the conveyance that the complainant and his wife would convey, and that said Miller would purchase, only that part of said tract of land which lay east of the South &amp North Alabama Railroad's right of way; that prior to the conveyance, and pending the negotiations, the complainant pointed out said tract of land which was intended to be purchased and conveyed to Frank M. Miller, and pointed to the railroad's right of way, designating said railroad as the western boundary of the land owned by plaintiff, and which was to be conveyed in the deed, and that this was fully understood and acquiesced in by said Miller; but that in the execution of the deed, by mistake or inadvertence on the part of the draftsman, the deed was so drawn as to include all of said S. 1/2 of said section 1, township 8, range 4 W without making the exception intended and previously agreed upon. It was then averred in the bill that subsequently, on February 27, 1897, Frank M. Miller and Callie A. Miller brought a suit in the circuit court of Morgan county against the complainant and his wife, seeking to recover damages for the breach of the covenants of warranty contained in said deed, averring in said complaint that the covenants were broken by reason of the fact that eight acres of the said S 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 1 were not owned by said Morris at the time of the execution of the deed, but it was averred that said eight acres were on the west side of said railroad track, and were not intended to be included in said deed. The prayer of the bill was that the deed executed from Morris and wife to Miller be corrected and reformed so as to convey the lands intended to be conveyed and purchased, and that the said Millers be further enjoined from prosecuting their action against the complainant and his wife. The defendant Edna Morris filed her answer to the bill, admitting the averments thereof, and further alleging the mistake and inadvertence in the execution of said deed, and asked that her answer be taken as a cross bill, and that the said deed be reformed so as to convey the lands intended to be sold and purchased, and that the Millers be further enjoined from the prosecution of their suit. The defendants Frank M. Miller and Callie A. Miller separately demurred to the bill and the cross bill, upon the ground that the complainant in the original bill and the complainant in the cross bill had a clear, adequate, and complete defense at law to the suit brought by the said Millers, and that, therefore, the bill and the cross bill were without equity. The other facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. On the final submission of the cause on the pleadings and proof, the chancellor decreed that the complainant in the original bill and the complainant in the cross will were, respectively entitled to the relief prayed for, and ordered accordingly. From this decree the respondents appeal, and assign...