Arthur D. Jones & Co. v. New England Mortgage Security Co.

Citations

• 38 Wash. 637
• 80 P. 796
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1223

Syllabus

<p>Deeds—Warranty—Intention to Except Lease—Construction of Clause—Acceptance of Deed Subject to Lease—Evidence—Sufficiency. In an action for breach of warranty, in that the premises conveyed were subject to a lease, to the damage of the grantee, in which action the defendant asked for a reformation of the warranty clause of the deed so as to except the lease, the evidence shows that the lease was to be excepted and it was error to refuse to reform the deed, where it appears that the premises were in the possession of a tenant under an agreement for a lease that expired November 1, 1903, that the deed in suit granted the property, “subject to the rental of the party for the year 1902,” which was inserted with the intention of excepting the lease from the warranty, and, upon objection to the lease, defendant refused to sell the property except subject to the lease; whereupon the plaintiff, in December, 1902, after payment of the rental for that year, took the advice of an attorney as to the form of the deed, and stated that it would accept the deed as drawn but would hold the defendant to the strict terms of the deed; since the plaintiff did not state its construction of the deed, and cannot by artifice bind the defendant to a contract which it knew the defendant did not intend to make.</p>