Norton v. Gross

• Decision Date: 29 March 1909
• Parties: NORTON et ux. v. GROSS et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

100 P. 734

52 Wash. 341

NORTON et ux. v. GROSS et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 29, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford, Judge.

Action by William B. Norton and wife against Ellis H. Gross and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

F. Campbell, for appellants.

William L. Waters and Harry H. Johnston, for respondents.

GOSE J.

This action was instituted by the respondents against the appellants for the twofold purpose of reforming a deed and quieting title to the property in accordance with such reformation. The amended complaint avers that on the 26th day of June, 1899, the appellants, in consideration of the sum of $2,400 then paid to them by the respondents, sold to respondents a certain tract of land in the city of Tacoma upon which there was a residence; that the respondents at once took and continued in the possession of the same; that the appellants conveyed to the respondents, according to the description contained in the deed, lot 12 and the south half of lot 11, block 410, in the city of Tacoma, as the same were known and marked upon a certain plat; that by mutual mistake of the parties there was omitted from such deed a quadrangular strip of land lying between the westerly end of the property as described in the deed and the easterly line of Tacoma avenue, which had at one time been a part of an alley, but which had been vacated April 16, 1899; that such parcel of land was included in the respondents' purchase; that the appellants were asserting title to the same. The appellants joined issue upon the averments as to the sale of the parcel of land which was not included in the deed. A decree was entered in favor of the respondents, reforming the deed and quieting title to the property. From this decree the appeal is prosecuted.

The evidence clearly establishes that the appellants acquired title by purchase to the one and one-half lots described in such deed on December 15, 1887; that at such time, and until April 18, 1897, there was an alley between the westerly end of such lots and Tacoma avenue; that prior to the vacation of such alley such lots abutted on E street on the east; that after the vacation of the alley the lots extended from E street on the east to Tacoma avenue on the west; that immediately before the sale the respondent husband, in company with the agent who negotiated the sale between the parties, called upon the appellants at their residence upon such property; that the appellant husband and the agent pointed out the lines of the property, and assured the respondent husband that the property abutted upon both E street and Tacoma avenue; that at such time the woodshed on the premises was, and now is, situate upon the disputed parcel of land abutted and now abuts on Tacoma...