Case ID: ohio-law-abs_8/html/0269-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOWDEN v WILLIAMS et
    Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co
    No 1671.
    Decided March 3, 1930
    Johnathan Taylor, Akron, for Bowden.
    Meade & Weygandt, Akron, for Williams et.
   PER CURIAM

, The minds of' the parties never met in agreement as to the location of the driveway; therefore said deed cannot be reformed as requested by Williams, and for a like reason it cannot be enforced against Williams, as requested by Bowden — the provisions of the deed as to the driveway having been inserted by the mutual mistake of said parties.

Under all the evidence in the case — there being no meeting of the minds and said provision having been inserted in the deed by mistake of all parties — said deed may be reformed by striking therefrom said provision in reference to the driveway, and there being no contract &s to a driveway, the title to lot 78 may be quieted in Williams and the title to lot 79 may be quieted in Bowden, and such is the order of the court; the entire eosts in both courts being assessed against Williams.

Funk, PJ.,. Pardee, J., and Washburn, J., concur.