Sciiwoebel v. Storrie
| Decision Date | 14 December 1909 |
| Citation | 74 A. 969,76 N.J.E. 466 |
| Parties | SCIIWOEBEL v. STORRIE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by Peter Schwoebel against William A. Storrie and others. Motion to dismiss the bill overruled.
Complainant seeks to reform a deed of conveyance made to him for certain real estate, and also to reform the deeds made to his grantor and to his grantor's grantor, respectively, for the same land. The bill avers that the mistake in the deed made to complainant and in the other deeds in complainant's chain of title arose as follows: On November 5, 1891, Keturah Mullica owned a tract of land fronting on Broad street, Woodbury, N. J., which tract was divided into two lots by a fence extending across the tract at about right angles to Broad street. Mrs. Mullica at that time resided in a dwelling house on the lot on the northerly side of the fence, and on the date named sold the lot on the southerly side of the fence to Elizabeth Brandt. The description of the land contained in the deed of conveyance was intended by the parties to extend to the fence above referred to, and thus make the fence the division line between the parties, but, by reason of an error in the description, the land actually covered by the language of the deed extends only to a line parallel with and five feet southerly of the fence. June 3, 1892, Elizabeth Brandt (the grantee referred to) sold the lot to Anna M. Latham. The deed made on that date contained the same erroneous description, and in consequence by its terms only extended to a line five feet southerly of the division fence already referred to. October 2, 1905, Anna M. Latham (the grantee last referred to) sold the lot to complainant. The deed made on that date followed the same erroneous description. The description contained in each of the three deeds was intended by the parties to extend to the fence, and was by the parties believed to extend to the fence. Each of the grantees named have during their respective ownerships been in actual and open possession of the five-foot strip which was omitted by the erroneous description, as possession of the entire southerly lot up to the fence was taken under the Mullica deed, and has been continuously maintained until this time. All of the deeds referred to were promptly recorded.
By deed dated February 10, 1906, the heirs of Mrs. Mullica conveyed to William A. Storrie the northerly lot referred to, and also the five-foot strip southerly of the fence, which was erroneously omitted from the deeds of complainant and his predecessors in title. Complainant and his respective predecessors in title believed that the description in their respective deeds extended to the fence until after the purchase by Storrie, when complainant was made aware of the errors in the several descriptions by a claim to the five-foot strip then asserted by Storrie. November 15, 1907, Storrie brought an action of ejectment against complainant for the recovery of the five-foot strip southerly of the fence, and recovered judgment February 16, 1909. The present bill seeks to stay the execution of that judgment, and to reform the errors of description referred to.
In addition to the averments contained in the bill that complainant and his predecessors in title have been in continuous and open possession of the five-foot strip, now in dispute, since the time the deed was made by Mrs. Mullica to Elizabeth Brandt, the bill avers as follows:
"And your orator further shows that the said William A. Storrie, prior to his purchase of the said tract of land, knew that your orator was in possession of the said five-foot strip, and that your orator claimed ownership of same."
Defendant Storrie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casriel v. King
...and, in my judgment, constitutes a waiver of such restriction and an estoppel against any possible right of rescission. Schwoebel v. Storrie, 76 N.J.Eq. 466, 74 A. 969. In that case Vice Chancellor Leaming, at page 470, of 76 N.J.Eq., at page 970 of 74A., said: ‘Where a person purchases pro......
-
Scult v. Bergen Val. Builders, Inc.
...v. Bramhall, 19 N.J.Eq. 563, 572 (E. & A.1868); Shoyer v. Mermelstein, 93 N.J.Eq. 57, 60, 114 A. 788 (Ch.1921); Schwoebel v. Storrie, 76 N.J.Eq. 466, 469, 74 A. 969 (Ch.1909); and Smallwood v. Lewin, 15 N.J.Eq. 60, 63 (Ch.1862). Additionally, I feel that in the absence of Knowledge of any k......
-
Colegrove v. Behrle
...plaintiffs' attorney, Mr. Ross, undoubtedly was sufficient to constitute actual notice under the principle of Schwoebel v. Storrie, 76 N.J.Eq. 466, 469, 74 A. 969, 970 (Ch.1909): 'When facts are brought to the knowledge of the person contemplating the purchase of the record title which are ......
-
Kutschinski v. Thompson
...Co., 90 N. J. Eq. 615, 110 A. 109; Jones v. Smith, 1 Hare, 43; Hoy v. Bramhall, 19 N. J. Eq. 563, 572, 97 Am. Dec. 687; Schwoebel v. Storrie, 76 N. J. Eq. 466, 74 A. 969; Raritan Water Power Co. v. Veghte, 21 N. J. Eq. 463, 478. See, also, as to doctrine of caveat emptor as applicable to re......