Mills v. Lockwood
Citations
- 42 Ill. 111
Syllabus
<p>1. Notice—ly recital of prior conveyance in a deed. Where a party holds a conveyance for land, and there is a misdescription of the premises therein, and, on conveying to another by deed in which the premises are correctly described, he recites the lands were the same conveyed to him by deed from his grantor, naming him, this second deed being upon record, it is notice to the heirs of the first grantor that his grantee claimed title from him, by force of his deed to the lands as described in the second conveyance.</p> <p>3. Befobming- an instbument — only in a clea/r case. To justify a court of chancery in reforming a deed, the evidence of the mistake must be clear and convincing. Correcting mistakes is a matter of discretion in the court, but not to be exercised without the strongest and most satisfactory evidence of its justice.</p> <p>3. But on full proof of a mistake, an equity arises in favor of the party affected by it, which the court is bound to protect, if protection can be afforded without injury to innocent purchasers, without notice of the mistake.</p> <p>4. And a party who seeks, through the aid of a court of chancery, the correction of a deed to an antecedent holder of the title to land, for a mistake in the description of the premises, ought not to be prejudiced in his claim to relief, because, before filing his bill, he sought to defend an action of ejectment for the premises, under title derived by other means than through the deed complained of.</p> <p>5. Estoppel. Nor should the party seeking such relief be estopped therefrom, because his grantor, while holding a deed in the regular chain of title, as administrator of the grantor who had made the deed sought to be reformed, presented his petition to the county court for a sale of the premises to pay debts, alleging therein that his intestate was seized of the lands at the time of his death, and obtaining an order of sale accordingly, the party asking the equitable relief not concurring in such
Judges: Breese
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Dozier v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama· 1880-12-15· cited 34×
- Totten v. TottenIllinois Supreme Court· 1920-06-16· cited 34×
- Bradley v. LightcapIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-04-24· cited 26×
- Ford v. AdkinsE.D. Illinois· 1941-07-07· cited 14×
- Carson v. DavisIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-02-14· cited 9×
- Silurian Oil Co. v. NealIllinois Supreme Court· 1917-02-21· cited 9×
- Schroeder v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court· 1911-04-19· cited 8×
- Wykle v. BartholomewIllinois Supreme Court· 1913-04-19· cited 3×
- Larocque v. BakerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1938-01-21· cited 3×
- Neuburger v. Foreman Bros. Banking Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1925-12-23· cited 2×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Other cases named Mills v. Lockwood
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.