Smith v. Allen

• Decision Date: 07 February 1894
• Citation: 14 So. 760,102 Ala. 406
• Parties: SMITH v. ALLEN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 760

102 Ala. 406

SMITH v. ALLEN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 7, 1894

Appeal from chancery court, Franklin county; Thomas Cobbs Chancellor.

Suit by William L. Smith against Russell Allen. From a judgment for defendant, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

The bill prayed to have reformed and corrected a deed to certain lands, which the complainant had executed to the defendant in exchange for other certain lands. The complainant exchanged by mutual conveyances, certain lands with the respondent. His deed thereto contained warranties of title. After the exchange of said lands, the said Allen instituted a suit in the circuit court for damages against the said Smith alleging a breach of warranty contained in the deed made to him by the complainant, in that all the mineral interest in 60 acres of land exchanged to him had been previously conveyed to one Ensley. Thereupon the complainant filed the present bill, praying that the respondent be enjoined from prosecuting his suit for damages in the circuit court, and also praying that the said deed to the respondent be reformed and corrected so as to state the true intention and agreement between the parties at the time, which agreement, he alleges was that the mineral rights to said 60 acres was specially reserved, and should have been excepted in the deed, but were omitted through mistake. The complainant alleges in his bill that, before the exchange was made, he told the respondent that the mineral rights to the lands had been sold and conveyed away, and that he, therefore, had no right to convey them. The evidence for the complainant and the respondent was in direct conflict; and upon the final submission of the cause, upon the pleadings and proof, the chancellor held that the complainant had not shown that he was entitled to relief prayed for, and decreed that his bill be dismissed.

Almon & Bullock, for appellant.

James W. Bolton, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

The bill was filed to reform a deed of conveyance of land executed by appellant, Smith, to the respondent, Allen. The entire land was conveyed in fee, with covenants of warranty. The bill avers that, as to 60 acres of the land sold and conveyed, the understanding and agreement of the parties was that complainant "was only to convey the surface of" the 60 acres, "and that said minerals and other rights were put in said conveyance, or not excepted therefrom, through inadvertence or mistake," and that respondent "knew that complainant did not own said minerals," "and he did not agree to sell and convey said minerals," etc. The answer contains positive and specific denials of all the material allegations of the bill. The deed is made an exhibit...