Stahn v. Hall

• Citation: 10 Utah 400,37 P. 585
• Decision Date: 27 July 1894
• Docket Number: 481
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: EMIL A. STAHN, RESPONDENT, v. C. D. HALL AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS

37 P. 585

10 Utah 400

EMIL A. STAHN, RESPONDENT, v. C. D. HALL AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS

No. 481

Supreme Court of Utah

July 27, 1894

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. Hon James A. Miner, Judge.

Action by Emil A. Stahn against C. D. Hall and others to reform a deed. From a judgment for plaintiff confirming the report of M. D. Lessenger, referee, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Mr James N. Kimball, for appellants.

Mr John E. Bagley and Messrs. Maloney & Perkins, for respondent.

BARTCH, J. MERRITT, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.

The plaintiff claims that, in a certain warranty deed made and executed by him and his wife on the 2d day of May, 1890, to the defendants H. B. Westover, George J. Kelly, and C. D. Hall, there was inserted in the description therein, among several other parcels of land, a certain parcel, by mutual mistake; that there was no intention on the part of the grantor to convey, nor on the part of the grantees, to purchase, the parcel of land so erroneously included in the description of the other lands contained in the deed. The defendants refusing to convey, he brought this action to reform the deed, and asked that it be set aside and held for naught, so far as the land so erroneously conveyed is concerned. The case was tried before a referee, and upon judgment being rendered in his favor, and a motion for a new trial having been denied by the court, the defendants appealed. The defendants Ille and McMillan were not named as grantees in the deed, but it is claimed they were parties to the original transaction, and had full knowledge of the land which was intended to be conveyed, and in a short time thereafter their interest therein was evidenced by deeds from the other defendants. Among other facts, the referee found, substantially, that when the deed of May 2, 1890, was executed and delivered, neither of the defendants knew that the land in controversy was described therein, nor intended it to be a part of the land conveyed; that the mistake of so including it was mutual between the plaintiff and the defendants; that the deed was made in pursuance of, and based wholly on, certain optional contracts made between the plaintiff and the defendant Westover, neither of which contained a description of the land in controversy; that the plaintiff continued in the possession of the land in question, and did not know of the mistake until a few days before bringing this suit; that it was through the mistake, inadvertence, and oversight of one Nelson, who prepared the deed, that the land in controversy was included; that, while the deed was made to the grantees therein named, yet McMillan was an original purchaser, defendant Westover having taken title in his name in trust for McMillan, who had full and actual notice thereby of the equities of the plaintiff; that, when defendant Ille purchased his interest in the land conveyed, the plaintiff was in the actual possession of the land in controversy, and was cutting lucerne therefrom, and had a fence and haystacks thereon; that the plaintiff never received any consideration for the land in question from the defendants.

The first contention of counsel for the appellants is that the court erred in admitting in evidence the optional contracts mentioned in the findings of fact, and it is insisted that...