Russell v. Scarborough

• Decision Date: 25 November 1929
• Docket Number: 28099
• Citation: 124 So. 648,155 Miss. 508
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: RUSSELL et al. v. SCARBOROUGH et al

124 So. 648

155 Miss. 508

RUSSELL et al. v. SCARBOROUGH et al

No. 28099

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 25, 1929

Division B

1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER. Possession under claim of title is notice to world of such claim.

Possession of land by one under claim of title is notice to the world of such claim.

2. VENDOR AND PURCHASER. Rights of one in possession of land under unrecorded claim of title are protected against bona-fide purchaser for value.

Rights of one in possession of land under claim of title are protected against bona-fide purchaser for value, although evidence of his title be not of record.

3. VENDOR AND PURCHASER. Open and notorious possession under claim of title was sufficient to put subsequent purchasers on inquiry as to claimants' right to reformation of deed.

Open and notorious possession of land under claim of title, in addition to plat on record, referred to and made a part of description of land in conveyance to claimants, held sufficient to put subsequent purchasers of land on inquiry which would have led to knowledge of claimants' right to reformation of deed containing a void description.

4. REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT. Reformation of deed will be allowed against purchasers from original parties with notice.

Reformation of a deed will be allowed not only as against original parties and their privies, but also against purchasers from them with notice.

HON. D M. RUSSELL, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Harrison county, HON. D. M. RUSSELL Chancellor.

Suit by Mrs. Gracie Scarborough and others against H. F. Russell and others. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Gardner, Brown & Backstrom and J. L. Taylor, all of Gulfport, for appellants.

It is the unalterable rule of equity that the purchaser for value without notice actual or constructive will not be affected by a latent equity, whether by lien, incumbrance, or trust, or fraud or any other claims. The equity to reform an instrument stands on the same footing as any other equity.

23 Miss. 124; 41 Miss. 274; 23 R. C. L., pages 338, 339, 340; 34 Cyc., pages 953, 956.

J. F. Galloway, of Gulfport, for appellees.

Both by the notation on the plat of record and by the possession of appellees any prospective purchaser was given constructive notice of appellees hostile claim and such purchaser was not an innocent purchaser without notice.

Jenkins v. Bodley, S. & M. Ch. 338; Dickson v. Lacosta, 1 S. & M. 70; Hall v. Thompson, 1 S. & M. 443; Wilty v. Hightower, 6 S. & M. 345; Humphrey v. Bartee, 10 S. & M. 282; Edmondson v. Orr, 12 S. &. M. 541; Jones v. Loggins, 37 Miss. 546; Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349; Taylor v. Lowenstein, 50 Miss. 278; Strickland v. Kirk, 51 Miss. 795; Taylor v. Mosely, 57 Miss. 544; Bratton v. Rogers, 62 Miss. 281; Money v. Ricketts, 62 Miss. 209; Thatheimer v. Lockert, 76 Ark. 25, 88 S.W. 591; White v. White, 105 Ill. 313; Bollenbacker v. Foley, 68 Ind.App. 632, 121 N.E. 124; Aniba v. Burleson, 229 Mich. 118, 200 N.W. 984; Fisher v. Dent, 259 Mo. 86, 167 S.W. 977; Pennfield v. New Rochelle, 45 N.Y.S. 460, 55 N.E. 1098.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

Appellees, who are heirs at law of F. M. Woodstock, deceased, filed their bill in the chancery court of Harrison county against appellants to reform a deed from Roderick Seal to F. M. Woodstock executed more than twenty years before the bill was filed. The cause was tried on bill, answer, and proofs, and a decree was rendered granting the relief prayed for in part. From that decree appellants prosecute this appeal.

The deed from Roderick Seal to F. M. Woodstock contained a void description of the land intended to be conveyed. The evidence amply showed that both parties to the deed intended to describe the land involved in this cause instead of that described in the deed.

The appellants contend, however, that, even though conceding that, as between the original parties, the grantee, F. M Woodstock, was entitled to have the deed reformed, the appellees, his heirs, have no such right because the appellants occupy the position of bona-fide purchasers for value of the property without notice of the appellees' rights. Appellants invoke the equitable principle that a purchaser for value of land, without notice, actual or constructive, will not be affected by a latent equity, whether such equity be a lien, trust, or deed of conveyance; that a deed which does not describe the land intended to be conveyed cannot be reformed as against such a purchaser. The appellees concede the soundness of that principle of equity, but contend that it has no application to the facts of this case, because the appellants, and those through whom they claim title to the land, had actual notice,...