Ross v. Williams
Before: Foote
Synopsis
Reformation of Deed—Mistake in Description.—A ¡Settler on Public Lands gave a wrong description of the land in his application for a patent, owing to a mistake of the government surveyor in marking the stakes, and a patent for the land issued containing such wrong description. The property, after several conveyances, was conveyed to plaintiff, but the original patentee remained in possession under an agreement with plaintiff by which he was to have the privilege to repurchase the land by a certain time. After the mistake in the description was discovered, plaintiff conveyed the land to the government, and received a patent in the name of the original patentee for the land as actually settled by the patentee. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to a reformation of the deeds from his grantor, and to the possession of the land taken in by the reformation.
FOOTE, C. This is an action brought for the purpose of reforming certain conveyances, and to recover certain lands which should have been properly described, but which by mistake were erroneously set out, therein. The plaintiff had [806]judgment against' all the parties defendant, but only one of them, Williams, appeals therefrom, and from an order denying him a new trial.
The points made by the appellant are that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and that the court erred in its rulings upon the admission and exclusion of evidence. To us the findings appear to be fully sustained by the evidence. We have examined with care the various rulings of the court as to the exclusion or admission of proffered evidence, and find that tribunal either to have been right in its action, or that its rulings did not and could not have had the least effect upon the decision in the cause. The effort of Williams to retain the land, and the money for which he had sold it, and his refusal to convey it by the description which it was originally intended to have, appears to have been inspired by a supposition he seems to have entertained that in some way unexplained by the record he could keep the plaintiff out of his just rights.
There is no merit in the appeal, and the judgment and order should be affirmed.
We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.
By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)