Boyertown National Bank v. Hartman

Citations

• 147 Pa. 558
• 23 A. 842
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 891

Syllabus

<p>Deeds — Mistahe—Beformatioiir-rJEmdence.</p> <p>Evidence to reform a deed on the ground of mistake must be clear, precise and indubitable. It must be not only credible, but of such weight and directness as to make out the facts alleged beyond a reasonable doubt.</p> <p>A wile’s name was mentioned in the recitals of a deed as a party to the instrument, but in the granting clause and in the habendum and covenants her name was omitted, and the husband’s, name alone appeared. It was claimed that her name was omitted by mistake and that it was intended to convey the land to the husband and wife jointly. One witness testified that directions were given to the scrivener to draw the deed to both, the husband and wife corroborated this, but a mortgage of the same date was offered in evidence in which the husband was recited as sole owner. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict for defendants in proceedings by a sheriff’s vendee to recover possession of the land which had been sold as the property of the husband, and that the court below would have been justified in giving binding instructions for plaintiff.</p>