Brimm v. McGee

Citations

• 119 Miss. 52
• 80 So. 379

Syllabus

<p>1. Vendor and Purchaser. Innocent purchaser. Evidence.</p> <p>where in a suit to reform deeds to adjoining lots on the ground of mutual mistake, complainant showed possession of his lot up to the driveway at the time defendant purchased adjoining lot, this was sufficient to charge defendant with notice that complainant was claiming to such driveway, so that defendant could not set up that he was an innocent purchaser.</p> <p>2. Reformation of Instruments. Grounds. Mistake. Description.</p> <p>Notwithstading the parties intentionally used in their deeds the very terms of description ’ written in the deeds and there was no ambiguity, on the face of the conveyance, they are not bound by the documents as written, but the deeds will be reformed, where the description was not in accordance with what they understood to be the boundaries of the lot.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>It is not what description the parties intended to write, but what property the parties intended to have embraced in the description that they used.</p> <p>4. Reformation of Instruments. Mistake as to legal sufficiency of description.</p> <p>Reformation oí deeds will not be denied because the parties made a mistake as to the legal sufficiency of the description.</p> <p>5. Reformation of Instruments. Power of equity.</p> <p>There are few limitations on the jurisdiction of a court of equity to correct mutual mistakes of fact.</p> <p>.6. Reformation of Instruments. Laches.</p> <p>Relief will not be denied on the ground of negligence, where a bill to reform deeds was promptly filed upon discovery of mutual mistake of fact where no one was injured by lapse of time.</p> <p>7. Equity. Decree. Conformity of pleadings and evidence.</p> <p>That the court relied upon a survey made during trial for an accurate description in framing its final decree, did not make such decree subject to the objection that it was not in accordance with the bill and evidence.</p>