Ohlander v. Dexter

• Decision Date: 14 December 1892
• Citation: 97 Ala. 476,12 So. 51
• Parties: OHLANDER v. DEXTER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

12 So. 51

97 Ala. 476

OHLANDER v. DEXTER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 14, 1892

Appeal from chancery court, Montgomery county; John A. Foster Chancellor.

Action by A. Ohlander against R. P Dexter. From a decree granting an injunction against the enforcement of a judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

E. P Morrisette and Watts & Son, for appellant.

W. S Thorington and L. C. Smith, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

A certain voluntary association of individuals, desiring to purchase a house and lot of land situated on the northwest corner of Dexter avenue and Bainbridge street, in the city of Montgomery, entered into negotiation with Ohlander to procure from him a relinquishment of a five-years lease of the premises held by him, and which stood in the way of getting present possession under a deed of conveyance from the owner of the fee. The negotiation with Ohlander resulted in the execution of the following written instruments, introduced in evidence as Exhibits A and B: "Exhibit A: Montgomery Ala., August 27th, 1887. I have received from Mr. A. Ohlander a relinquishment to his lease with L. Lawall for consideration of one hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid him in ten days, and use of the premise until Nov. 1st, 1887, free of rent. [Signed] R. P. Dexter." "Exhibit B In consideration of one hundred and fifty dollars to be paid to me within the next ten days, and to allow me to continue the use of the storehouse, northwest corner of Dexter avenue and Bainbridge street, for use of storing furniture, until Nov. 1st next, free of rent, I agree to relinquish and give up all my right and claim to above-mentioned storehouse that I have by virtue of a five-years lease from Mr. Lawall. [Signed] Aug. Ohlander. Montgy. Ala., Aug. 27th, 1887." On the 31st day of October, 1887, Ohlander moved out and surrendered the possession of the storehouse, and shortly afterwards sued Dexter in a court of law for the $150. This suit resulted in a judgment for Ohlander, and on appeal to the supreme court the judgment was affirmed. 10 South. Rep. 527. Dexter then filed the present bill in the chancery court, asking to be relieved from the judgment of the law court.

The averments of the bill substantially are that "orator, in writing, [Exhibit A,] by inadvertence and mistake employed language, the legal effect and operation of which is materially and essentially different from what was intended both by orator and the said Ohlander, the said Ohlander and orator being unlearned in the law, and neither of them knowing that the language used in said receipt was susceptible of the interpretation placed upon it by the courts, and, in giving said receipt, orator intended simply to give the said Ohlander a paper writing showing that orator had received from him the said paper writing signed by the said Ohlander, and the words 'for consideration of one hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid by him in ten days, and use of the premises until Nov. 1st, 1887, free of rent,' used in said receipt, was intended by orator as referring to and descriptive of the paper writing signed by the said Ohlander, and the said Ohlander accepted said receipt with the same intention and understanding as that which influenced orator in making and delivering the same," etc. The prayer of the bill is that the "writing or receipt hereinabove described may be reformed under the direction and decree of the court, or, if mistaken in this relief, that it be delivered up and canceled by the court, and for a perpetual injunction," etc. The answer of the defendant denies all the material averments of the bill, and "avers positively that he intended to receive from complainant his written obligation to pay defendant one hundred and fifty dollars for the transfer and relinquishment of his lease contract, and without which he would not have signed and placed in the hands of the complainant his relinquishment of his whole interest in said lease contract; that defendant believed at the time that such was the construction placed by complainant upon the character and purpose of said writings contemporaneously executed by and between complainant and defendant," etc. Upon proof at the final hearing the chancery court held that plaintiff was entitled to relief; that it was unnecessary to reform the writings, as the same purpose could be effected by an injunction; and decreed a perpetual injunction against the enforcement of the judgment.

Equity will not interfere to grant relief when the agreement made is that intended to be made, but the parties were mistaken as to its legal effect; but if the parties undertake to draw up a particular agreement, and by the use of inapt words another and different agreement is executed, upon clear and satisfactory proof of the terms of the agreement intended to be made, and of the mistake, "equity will reform the instrument so as to make it conform to the intended agreement." Larkins v. Biddele, 21 Ala. 253. Conceding, for the present, that the averments of the bill bring complainant's case within the rule which entitles him to relief upon proper proof, we will examine the evidence under the rules of law applicable when parties seek to reform a written instrument.

It is not pretended there was any fraud or undue influence practiced by Ohlander. The complainant himself drafted the instrument in his own language, and without suggestion as to the terms to be employed in executing the instrument. The courts are unanimous in holding that to entitle the plaintiff to relief in such cases the proof must be clear, exact, and satisfactory, (Guilmartin v. Urquhart, 82 Ala. 570, 1 South. Rep. 897;) or, as expressed in Trapp v. Moore, 21 Ala. 697, "if, through mistake, a written agreement contains substantially more or less than the parties to it intended, or from ignorance or want of skill in the draftsman the object and intention of the parties, as contemplated by the agreement, is not expressed in the written instrument by reason of the use of inapt expressions, upon clear and satisfactory proof of such mistake, equity will interfere, and reform the...