Waters v. Massey-Harris Harvester Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1929
• Docket Number: 12117.
• Parties: WATERS et ux. v. MASSEY-HARRIS HARVESTER CO.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

278 P. 614

86 Colo. 98

WATERS et ux. v. MASSEY-HARRIS HARVESTER CO.

No. 12117.

Supreme Court of Colorado

May 27, 1929

Casemaker Note: Portions of this opinion were specifically rejected by a later court in 242 P.2d 819

Department 2.

Error to District Court, Yuma County; L. C. Stephenson, Judge.

Action by the Massey-Harris Harvester Company against Albert L Waters and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Reversed with directions. [278 P. 615.]

Thompson & Grutter, of Yuma, and T. E. Munson, of Sterling, for plaintiffs in error.

M. M Bulkeley, of Wray, for defendant in error.

MOORE J.

The Harvester Company, a judgment creditor of Albert L. Waters sued him and his wife to reform a deed executed by the latter to her husband by showing the real estate intended to be conveyed instead of that described in the deed, which description arose through a mutual mistake of the parties thereto. A demurrer to the complaint for want of facts was overruled. The defendants elected to stand upon their demurrer, and judgment was rendered against them and the deed reformed as prayed for in the complaint. This writ is prosecuted to review the ruling on demurrer and judgment of the lower court.

The plaintiffs in error urge that the demurrer should have been sustained because the deed is a voluntary conveyance and without consideration; that a court of equity will not reform such a deed as against the grantor; and that, in any event, the Harvester Company, not being a party to the deed or a privy thereunder, cannot maintain this suit. The defendant in error opposes these contentions.

In determining this question, it is only necessary to consider one point. Under the allegations in the complaint, can the Harvester Company, a judgment debtor, maintain this action? Our answer is in the negative.

As to who may sue to reform a deed on the ground of mutual mistake, the general rule is laid down in 23 R.C.L. 338, as follows:

'Sec. 31. Either party to a written contract may have a mutual mistake corrected. * * * And if a mistake of description occurs in a series of conveyances under circumstances that would entitle any one of the vendees to a reformation as against his immediate vendor, the equity will work back through all and give the last vendee a right of reformation against the original vendor. * * * Courts will not interpose in behalf of persons who are neither parties to the instrument nor claiming any privity.'

34 Cyc. 950, 951:

'A. To entitle a person to reformation it should appear that he is a party or privy to the transaction in question and has a substantial interest therein; a less standing does not warrant the remedy. * * * A grantee under a voluntary deed, however, never has standing to reform in a court of equity for, never having paid a consideration, he is deprived of nothing if mistake does exist.

'D. A vendee is subrogated to all the rights

...