Court Opinion

ID: 9812862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:51:03.468428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:05.051381
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
concurring. I concur in the opinion upon the evidence of the defendant himself, who practically admits that he did not think be was buying anything more than the store-house lot. And yet I think this case goes to the verge of *851the doctrine. There is no discrepancy between the previous contract and the deed. The defendant did not offer to buy the store-house lot as such. He made a written offer to> buy a lot at a designated spot, measuring fifty by one hundred and fifty feet. The deed was made in strict accordance with the written offer. It is true this lot covered the store-house lot, but it was not limited to the store-house lot, certainly not in terms. Both parties thought the lot was one hundred and fifty feet deep, and both parties knew that the plaintiff had the right to convey that much land, as it owned the surrounding land. Strictly speaking there was no mistake either in the written contract or in the deed made in pursuance of the contract. Both papers were written as the parties intended them to be written. The sole mistake lay in the fact that neither party knew the exact depth of the storehouse lot, so called; which it seems was all that either party intended to buy or sell. I fully concur in the intimation of the court that the defendant should recover all better-ments. Asking from a court of equity relief from its own mistake, the plaintiff should be required to do equity to the one admittedly holding the legal title.
While this decision does not overrule the case of McKenzie v. Houston, 130 N. C., 566, which involved the construction of a deed, it is, of course, subversive of its essential principle.