Legal Opinion

McCasland v. Ætna Life Insurance

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1886No. 12,784PublishedCited by 15 opinions

From the Sullivan Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

complaint of the appellee seeks to reform a deed and to quiet title to the land which the grantor intended to convey.

It is contended by the appellant that the complaint is bad because it shows a mistake of law and not of fact. The mistake is shown to have been in the description of the land intended to be conveyed, and such a mistake, while in some cases one of law, is generally one of fact. The office of a description in a deed is not to identify the land, but to supply the means of identification. Rucker v. Steelman, 73 Ind. 396. Where, therefore, a mistake is made in describing land, it is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rucker v. SteelmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Conyers v. MericlesIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Ethridge v. PerrymanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
  2. Moehlenkamp v. ShatzIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. McNamee v. RauckIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Alfalfa Lumber Co. v. MudgettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
  5. Keister v. MyersIndiana Supreme Court · 1888

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API