Case ID: nj-eq_5/html/0327-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM BLAIR v. JAMES J. M’DONNELL.
    Relief granted where, by mistake of both seller and buyer, the deed did not cover the lands intended to be sold and bought, and money paid on account of the purchase decreed to be repaid, and the bond and mortgage given by the purchaser to be canceled.
    On the 18th of March, 1842, James J. M’Donnell conveyed to William Blair two lots in Harsimus, by the following description : “ All those two lots of land in Harsimus, in the county of Hudson, being part of-block No. 150, on a certain map or chart of Harsimus made by J. A. Maugin, and recorded in the office of the clerk of Bergen; on which block the said two lots may be known as lots numbers 19 and 20, each lot being 25 feet wide in front and rear, and 100 feet deep,” for the consideration of $1000, with covenants of seizin and warranty. Blair, on the same day, gave his bond to M’Donnell for the $1000, payable in two years, with interest; and, with his wife, executed to M’Donnell a mortgage on the lots described in the deed, to secure the bond. On the same day, Blair paid M’Donnell $200 of the money, and it was endorsed on the bond.
    These two lots, described in the deed and mortgage, fronted on Erie street, extending from front to rear in a line parallel with South Seventh street, and fifty feet distant from that street. The block No. 150, is 400 feet long, between Erie and Grove streets, and 200 feet wide, between South Sixth and South Seventh streets; and, on the map referred to, there are laid out eight lots of 25 feet wide and 100 feet deep, fronting on Grove street, occupying the whole front of the block on that street; and eight lots of the same width and depth fronting on Erie street, occupying the whole front of the block on that street; leaving two tiers of lots, of eight lots in each tier, of the same front and depth, one tier fronting on South Sixth, and the other on South Seventh street. Lots 17 and 18 on the map lay between the lots described in the deed and South Seventh street, and fronted on Erie and South Seventh street, and extending in depth, along South Seventh street, 100 feet.
    During the negotiation between M’Donnell and Blair, M’Donnell took Blair to the corner of Erie and South Seventh streets, and showed him the ground he proposed to sell to him, and represented it as comprising two lots adjoining each other, in all, 50 feet front' and rear, and 100 feet deep, fronting on South Seventh street, and bounded by the’easterly line or side of Erie street; and that the said lots formed the southwest corner of block No. 150, on the said map made by Mangin. M’Donnell told the complainant there was no necessity for his being at any trouble or expense in making searches for the title of the said premises, or for any encumbrances thereon, and referred him to Mr. Cassidy for information in reference thereto. Blair accordingly applied to Mr. Cassidy, and was told by him that the title was good; and Blair, being satisfied with these representations, took the deed, and gave the bond and mortgage.
    After receiving his deed, Blair made, preparation to build a house on the premises, and caused a quantity of building materials to be conveyed to what M’Donnell had represented to be the front of the lots he bought; when he was told that the lots 19 and 20 described in his deed, did not front on South Seventh street, nor form the southwest corner of Erie and South Seventh streets j but that they front on Erie street, and are 50 feet distant from South Seventh street.
    Blair filed his bill, stating the foregoing facts, and praying that M’Donnell may be decreed to repay the $200, with interest thereon, and to give up the bond and mortgage to be canceled, on the complainant’s releasing to him all his interest, &c.
    M’Donnell put in his answer, stating that, on the 1st April, 1835, one Hutton bought from the Messrs. Coles the four lots, 17, 18, 19, 20, as laid out on said Maugin’s map. That, on the 18th August, 1836, Hutton conveyed to one Israel Charm pion the two of the said lots which are marked 17 and 18. That Champion built and enclosed, fronting on South Seventh street. That, on the 15th October, 1839, J. C. Terhune, sheriff, on an execution against Hutton, sold the other two of the four lots, viz., 19 and 20, to the defendant for $1500. That the deed from the sheriff to him describes as thereby conveyed, two lots bought by Hutton of the estate of Coles, numbered 19 and 20, southwest corner of block No. 150, on the said Mangin’s map. The defendant admits that he represented and pointed out to the complainant, as stated in the bill, that the lots fronted 50 feet on South Seventh street, and extended along the easterly side of Erie street 100 feet, and formed the southwest corner of block 150. He says that at the time of the said sale and conveyance by him to the complainant, the space of 50 feet front by 100 feet deep, fronting on South Seventh street, was enclosed by a fence, and had been previously cultivated by Hutton. That the four lots bought by Hutton from the estate of Coles, formed one parcel of 100 feet' square, being the southeast corner of block Ho. 150 ; that they are known as lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, on said Mangin’s map; and that it was supposed and understood by Hutton, when he bought them, as the defendant has been informed and believes, that they were numbered on South Seventh street, instead of on Erie street, as laid down on said map; and that in pursuance of that belief on the part of Hutton, Hutton sold and conveyed to Champion numbers 17 and 18, which both Hutton and Champion understood and believed fronted, and were numbered, on South Seventh street; and that, in accordance with that understanding and belief, Champion built a house and stable and other necessary buildings upon, and enclosed a space of 50 feet by 100 feet, embracing the rear half of said four lots, as they are laid down and numbered on the said map, the house and stable fronting on South Seventh street; and that Champion has occupied the said space for more than nine years; and that Hutton, after his conveyance to Champion, retained possession of the other half of said space, considering it as lots 19 and 20, numbered on South Seventh street, up to the time of the sale by the sheriff as aforesaid, when the defendant bought under the full belief that lots 19 and 20 fronted on South Seventh street, and included the corner of said block, and extended 100 feet on Erie street; and that he sold and conveyed to the complainant under the same belief. That at the time Champion applied to Hutton for the purchase of two lots on said block 150, he was desirous of buying the two lots which (considering the four as numbered on South Seventh street) formed the southwest corner of the block, but Hutton refused to sell them, though Champion offered him $200 more for them than he paid Hutton for the lots he bought; and that the defendant was present at the conversation. The defendant submits to the court whether the deed from him to the complainant is not a good and valid deed, to pass the title of the part intended to be conveyed and bought, inasmuch as the different grantees bought believing the lots to be numbered on South Seventh street, especially as there was no fraud in the matter, but merely a mistake as to the numbering of the lots.
    The proofs taken show the facts to be as they may be sufficiently gathered from the bill and answer.
    
      Bentley, for the complainant.
    He cited 1 Story’s Eq., §§ 141, 142, 155, 156, 193; 2 Ibid., §§ 192-4.
    
      M. Ogden, contra,
    
    cited 1 Story’s Eq., §§ 110-12.
   The Chancellor.

This is, no doubt, a case of mutual mistake. There is no ground for a charge of fraud in the defendant. The mistake was not in reference to the land which the defendant proposed to sell, and the complainant to buy. That was well understood by both parties; it was 50 feet front and rear, on the southwest corner of block 150, fronting on South Seventh street, and extending along the easterly side of Erie street 100 feet. The mistake was in supposing that a deed for lots 19 and 20, as u umbered on Mangin’s map, would convey what the one proposed to sell and the other to buy.

It is claimed, on the part of the defendant, that from the manner in which Champion enclosed and built, it must be taken that his purchase from Hutton was of 50 feet fronting on South Seventh street, and extending, in depth, across the rear half of the four lots, 17, 18, 19 and 20. It is true that Hutton, owning the 100 feet square, might have sold as he pleased, fronting either on South Seventh or on Erie street; and if he sold to Champion the lot as now enclosed by him, the residue of the 100 feet square might have been considered as having passed by the sheriff’s deed to the defendant; in which case, a reformation of the deed from the defendant to the complainant would have been the proper relief. But the deed from Hutton to Champion conveyed lots 17 and 18, as laid down on Man-gin’s map.

It may be that, notwithstanding that description, sufficient might be shown to establish that Hutton intended to sell and Champion to buy the lots as now enclosed by Champion ; and to induce the court, in a proceeding between the proper parties, to reform that deed. But that cannot be done in this suit. Champion, notwithstanding the manner in which he has enclosed, claims title according to the description in his deed j and that covers half of the land in reference to which M’Donnell and the complainant dealt. To reform the deed from M’Donnell to the complainant, and leave the complainant to rely on confining Champion’s title to the lot he has enclosed, would not be the measure of relief to which the complainant is entitled. It would put the complainant in the position of having bought a lawsuit with Champion; a thing which he certainly never consented to, and which the defendant never intended to impose on him. The relief sought by the bill is the proper relief in the case.

Decree accordingly.