Wachendorf v. Lancaster
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Clayton Circuit Cov/rt Action on the covenants of a deed against incumbrances. The premises conveyed were incumbered by a right-of-way for railroad purposes, and this was the breach alleged in the petition.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Clayton Circuit Cov/rt Action on the covenants of a deed against incumbrances. The premises conveyed were incumbered by a right-of-way for railroad purposes, and this was the breach alleged in the petition. The defendants pleaded an equitable defense, and alleged that the sale was made subject to the right-of-way, and that by mistake the following was omitted from the deed by the scrivener: “Excepting that portion of said lot No. twenty (20), now owned and operated by the C., D. & M. Railroad Company.” The equitable defense alone was tried before Hon. James O. Crosby, referee,…
1Opinion of the Court
Servers, Ch. J.
í TYTTsrra ~r"r m mation fe|vil dence. — Before a written instrument can be re-i'ormed on the ground that there was a mistake ^11 drafting it, the evidence that there was a mistake should be clear, satisfactory, and free from reasonable doubt. McTucker v. Taggart, 29 Iowa, 478; *510Strayer v. Stone, 47 Id., 336; Hervey v. Savery, 48 Id., 319. The mistake'must be mutual. Ramsey v. Smith, 32 N. J. Eq., 28.
We have read the evidence more than once, and carefully considered it, and we unite in the conclusion that the finding of the referee is right, and that the court erred in setting…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McTucker v. TaggartSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
3Cited by16 opinions
- McDermott v. Iowa Falls & Sioux City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- Houser v. AustinIdaho Supreme Court · 1886
- Carey v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Hunt v. GraySupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Cox v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.