Wright v. Lott

• Decision Date: 28 October 1929
• Docket Number: 28068
• Citation: 155 Miss. 185,124 So. 270
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WRIGHT v. LOTT et al

124 So. 270

155 Miss. 185

WRIGHT v. LOTT et al

No. 28068

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 28, 1929

Division B

1 DEEDS. Evidence. All agreements antedating deed are merged in deed, if unambiguous; unambiguous deed cannot be varied by parol testimony.

All agreements antedating a deed are merged in deed, if unambiguous, and such deed is not subject to be varied by parol testimony.

2 ACTION. Reformation of instruments. Equitable defenses are not admissible in court at law; court of law cannot reform deed.

In a court at law, equitable defenses are not admissible, and the court of law has no power to reform a deed.

3 EJECTMENT. Plaintiff in ejectment, introducing unambiguous deed showing title without subsequent conveyance, was entitled to directed verdict.

Where the plaintiff, in an ejectment action, introduces a deed, unambiguous on its face, showing title to the land in controversy, and there has been no conveyance from him since the acquirement of said deed to the property, he is entitled to have the jury instructed that, if the deed was executed to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not reconveyed the same to the defendant, or some other party, the jury should find for the plaintiff.

HON. JOHN F. ALLEN, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Grenada county, HON. JOHN F. ALLEN, Judge.

Action by Jacob Wright against Cecile Lott and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

S. C. Mims, Jr., of Grenada, for appellant.

An equitable estoppel is not available as a defense in an action of ejectment.

Hoges v. Hoges, 54 So. 618; Kinkins v. Latham, 45 So. 60; Vankirk v. Green, 31 So. 484; Williams v. Armstrong, 30 So. 553.

A mistake as to where the true line is located and acquiescing therein does not estop a man from claiming his land when the true line is discovered.

Archer v. Helm, 70 Miss. 888; Sec. 110 of R. C. L., vol. 10, page 799; Evans v. Miller, 58 Miss. 120.

Cowles Horton, of Grenada, for appellees.

While an equitable defense is not permissible in an action at law, an equitable estoppel is admissible.

15 Cyc. 71; 9 R. C. L. 876-877; 10 R. C. L. 688; 16 Cyc. 682, sec. 14; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578, 25 L.Ed. 618; Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 26 L.Ed. 79; Fairlie v. Scott, 102 So. 247; Blackiston v. Smith, 73 So. 839; Thomas v. Goodhead, 82 So. 835; La Rosa v. Nichols, 6 A.L.R. 414; Tobin v. Allen, 53 Miss. 563; Dayhood v. Neely, 135 Miss. 14; Strauss v. Denton, 140 Miss. 745; 4 R. C. L. 131, secs. 72, 73; 10 R. C. L., sec. 110, pages 798-799.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

The appellant, Jacob Wright, brought an action of ejectment in the circuit court for a certain described tract of land together with a demand for four hundred dollars for use and occupation and damages. The strip involved was ten acres off of the east side of the quarter. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and set up, by a special plea, that the plaintiff should not maintain the action because the heirs at law of the father of the plaintiff, who had died intestate and seized and possessed of the lands in the declaration, had an agreement of partition and division in kind of the lands among the heirs at law; that the defendant paid owelty, and part of the land was taken in possession in the said division, that in the division there was set off to the defendant certain lands, and that the defendant was advised and informed by the plaintiff, and other heirs, that the lands involved in the suit and described in the plaintiff's declaration were set off and allotted to, and became the property of, the defendant; that she took, and received, and held these lands on said representations and statement agreeably to all of the heirs, including the plaintiff, and the lands, in fact, belonged to her, and not to the plaintiff; that it was the purpose and intent of all the parties, and especially the plaintiff and the defendant in this suit, that the defendant should take and receive the said ten acres of land, without which the division would not have been fair and equal; and that all of the parties accepted and...