Case Name: Wachendorf et al. v. Lancaster et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1883-09-20
Citations: 61 Iowa 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wachendorf et al. v. Lancaster et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 509–511

Head Matter:
Wachendorf et al. v. Lancaster et al.
1. Mistake in Deed: reformation: evidence. Before a ■written instrument can be reformed on the ground that- there was a mistake in drafting it, it must be shown that the mistake was mutual, and the evidence of the mistake must be clear, satisfactory, and free from reasonable doubt.
2. Practice in Supreme Court: rehearing to delinquent party. A rehearing will not be granted upon the petition of a party who fails to make an argument when the cause is submitted; but when satisfied that an error has.been committed, the court will, on its own motion, order a rehearing in order to correct the error.
Appeal from, Clayton Circuit Cov/rt
Thursday, September 20.
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, who found that such defense had not been established. Exceptions were taken to the report of the referee, and the court set the report aside and rendered judgment for defendants, and the plaintiffs appeal.
Stoneman <& Chapim, and 8. P. Adams, for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.

Opinion:
Servers, Ch. J.
— 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; Strayer 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 aside his finding and rendering judgment for the defendants. The evidence that there was a mistake is not of the clear and satisfactory character it should be. It fails to show, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that the mistake was mutual. We incline to think the deed was drawn just as the plaintiffs intended and understood it Was to. be. After the deed was drafted, it was read over three times to the parties, and assented to by them. No beneficial result would be served by a discussion of the evidence, and such is not our usual custom. The judgment of the circuit court will be
Reversed.