Case Name: Willson & a. v. Legro & a.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1906-03-06
Citations: 73 N.H. 515
Docket Number: 
Parties: Willson & a. v. Legro & a.
Judges: All concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 515–515

Head Matter:
Strafford, )
March 6, 1906. (
Willson & a. v. Legro & a.
The mere fact that a deed of real estate inadvertently describes a part of the land twice does not entitle the grantee to maintain a bill in equity for a reformation.
Bill in Equity, for the reformation of the description of land conveyed from the defendants to the plaintiffs, in connection with an action at law for the recovery of a portion of the purchase price. Transferred from the September term, 1905, of the superior court by Chamberlin, J. Facts agreed. The deed purported to convey several tracts of woodland. Without the knowledge of either party one of the lots was described twice, which made the entire acreage of the land conveyed appear in the deed to be more than it was. Since the date of the deed, the plaintiffs have cut off the wood and timber from the premises.
William S. Pierce, for the plaintiffs.
Creorge P. Cochrane, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Walkee, J.
It does not appear but that the action at law affords the plaintiffs a plain and adequate remedy for all recoverable damages they have sustained in consequence of the duplicated description of a part of the granted premises. Having obtained a deed which by inadvertence describes one part of the land twice, it is not perceived how the plaintiffs' position would be improved by a decree in equity reforming the description in the deed by striking out the superfluous part thereof. If the deed conveys to them the land they bought, the fact that it describes the land more than once is immaterial, so far as they are concerned. Such a decree would obviously be unnecessary and legally useless.
Case discharged.
All concurred.