N. ADAMS, AS SURVIVING PARTNER, &C., APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH DAVIS AND OTHERS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this bill of review case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal and ordered reformation of a mortgage deed. The court found sufficient evidence that the parties intended to mortgage only 120 acres (after a 40-acre sale) but the mortgage mistakenly described a different 40-acre parcel as excepted.
The evidence sustained the bill of review and clearly established the parties' intent to mortgage only the 120 remaining acres. The northeastern forty acres, not the northwestern forty, should have been excepted from the mortgage description. The mortgage deed must be reformed accordingly.
“We think it clearly established that Benjamin Davis at one time owned a quarter section, 160 acres, but before applying for the mortgage loan had sold off a forty to one Dancy. That in the application for the mortgage it was clearly the intention of all parties to include therein the remaining 120 acres, but by mistake the excepted forty was placed in the northeast instead of the northwest corner of the quarter section.”
Establishes the factual basis for reformation—the parties' clear intent and the nature of the mistake in the written description.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenjamin Davis originally owned a quarter section of 160 acres. Before applying for a mortgage loan, he sold 40 acres to one Dancy. The mortgage appli…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reformation Of Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
[*201] Cockrell, J.-
For a statement of the bill of review in this case, reference may be had to the opinion of the court upon the former appeal, Adams v. Davis, 63 Fla. 324, 58 South. Rep. 837. We there held that the complainant had stated a case for equitable relief. Thereafter the defendants, Elizabeth Davis and Elizabeth McQuay answered the bill under oath and evidence was taken, resulting in a dismissal of the bill.
We are of the opinion that the evidence sustained the bill, even upon the quantum of proof necessary to overcome the sworn answer in cases of reformation. We think it clearly established that Benjamin Davis at one time owned a quarter section, 160 acres, but before applying for the mortgage loan had sold off a forty to one Dancy. That in the application for the mortgage it was clearly the intention of all parties to include therein the remaining 120 acres, but by mistake the excepted forty was placed in the northeast instead of the northwest corner of the quarter section. The mortgage as written called for one hundred and twenty acres, but as written, one-third of the described land had theretofore been sold. The defendants do not attempt to explain why the mortgagors should try to mortgage property not owned by them — in fact they merely say they did not intend to mortgage the forty in the northwest corner, admitting that they had theretofore sold off the northeast comer. We have not only the testimony of two witnesses to overcome this rather general allegation of the answer, but most persuasive corroborating circumstances. Herring v. Fitts, 43 Fla. 54, 30 South. Rep. 804.
Decree reversed with directions to reform the mortgage.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hooker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Herring v. Fitts, 43 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1901)
- Adams v. Davis, 63 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1912)