Case Name: BOWDEN v. WILLIAMS et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1930-03-03
Citations: 8 Ohio Law Abs. 269
Docket Number: No 1671
Parties: BOWDEN v WILLIAMS et
Judges: Funk, PJ.,. Pardee, J., and Washburn, J., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 8
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.