Rosenbaum v. Evans

Citations

• 63 Wash. 506
• 115 P. 1054
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 1235

Syllabus

<p>Reformation of Instruments — Complaint — Sufficiency — Mutual Mistake. A-complaint for the reformation of a deed sufficiently shows a “mutual” mistake, where it alleges a mistake either Of the scrivener or of the plaintiffs, whereby the southeast quarter was conveyed, when the grantors and grantees both intended the southwest quarter.</p> <p>Venue — Transitory Action — Reformation of Deed — Courts— Jurisdiction. An action to reform a deed is transitory, the courts of this state having jurisdiction over the p'erson of the defendant, although the deed was of land in another state.</p> <p>Refobmation of Instbuments — Defenses—Estoppel. Failure to read a deed does not estop the grantors from maintaining an action to reform it to correct a mistake in the description.</p> <p>Refobmation of Instbuments — Mutual Mistake — Evidence— Sufficiency. A mutual mistake, warranting the reformation of a deed, is established, within the rule requiring clear and convincing evidence, where the deed called for the southeast quarter, and was not read by the grantors, who' intended to convey the southwest quarter, and it appears that the agreement was for an unimproved quarter, that the southeast quarter was improved and worth twice as much as the southwest quarter, that the grantors had declined to convey the northeast quarter, which was of less value than the southeast, and testified that they had given the grantees the choice of the two west quarters, which were of equal value and unimproved, the grantees admitting that they were to have unimproved land, but testifying that they were given the choice of the two south quarters, and that they were surprised to find improvements on the land described in the deed.</p>