Monterey County v. Seegleken

TEMPLE, C. This action was brought to reform a deed. Plaintiff avers that it purchased from the defendants a tract of land, which the complaint specifically describes, for the consideration of $1,000, which was then paid to the defendants ; that on the day on which it paid said money to defendants they executed a deed to it, intending thereby to convey the tract of land above alluded to, but, through the mistake of the scrivener in writing the deed, they in fact conveyed to plaintiff, contrary to the agreement and understanding of the grantors and grantee, another tract, which is also specifically described in the complaint; that the mistake was not discovered by plaintiff for several months after the execution of the deed; that defendants refused to rectify the mistake by executing a deed for the tract of land which plaintiff purchased ; wherefore plaintiff demands a decree that the deed be reformed, and for such relief as may be just and equitable. The answer is a general denial. The court found for plaintiff all the facts averred in the complaint, but it also found that, as part of the consideration for the deed, plaintiff agreed to give to defendants a sufficient cattle-way from their lands to the Salinas river, between the bridge across Salinas river and the lands of F. S. Spring; and that plaintiff had not complied with that part of its agreement, and had not left a sufficient cattle-way for defendants to the river. Thereupon an interlocutory order was made, requiring plaintiff to provide a cattle-way according to the agreement and to the approval [615]of the court, which, when done, would entitle plaintiff to the decree as prayed for. Subsequently a final decree was entered, in which, among other things, it is recited that a cattle-way has been provided for defendants. The decree then proceeds to award the relief prayed for. Defendants moved for a new trial, and now appeal from the order denying their motion. Three points only are made on this appeal: (1) The alleged contract was not proven, and the contract which was proven had not been performed by plaintiff; (2) the contract proven is so uncertain and indefinite that a court of equity will not enforce it; and (3) the misunderstanding, if there was any, was not mutual.

The county of Monterey, the plaintiff, purchased the land for a highway. It is a strip sixty feet wide along the. river, at the westerly termination of which, it appears, a bridge was to be built.across Salinas river. The plaintiff contends that the strip purchased extended to Spring’s land, which is some one hundred feet farther down the river than the strip described in the deed extends. The bridge was built by the county below the land described in the deed, and within about thirty feet of Spring’s boundary.