Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

son of misdescription: Stevens v. Holman, 112 Cal. 345; 53 Am. St. Rep. 216; Courtright v. Courtright, 63 Iowa, 356. Compare monographic note to Tiernan v. Poor, 19 Am. Dec. 230-236, on the power of equity to perfect or enforce defectively executed or acknowledged instruments of a married woman.

Deeds of Gift, which do not express the intention of the grantor, may be reformed: Larkins v. Biddle, 21 Ala. 252; but equity will not so reform such a deed as to give it an effect contrary to the intention of the grantor: Meeks v. Stillwell, 54 Ohio St. 541.

Deeds of Sheriffs-Judicial Sales.-It has been held that a sheriff's deed may be reformed to accord with the facts, where admissible evidence shows that its recitals are wrong and should be corrected: Bartlett v. Judd, 21 N. Y. 200; 78 Am. Dec. 131; Thomas v. Dockins, 75 Ga. 347; Wise v. Brooks, 69 Miss. 891, 895; and that, if there has been a mistake as to the quantity of land sold at a judicial sale, a court of equity may afford relief, if the mistake was such that relief would be granted had the sale been a private one: Miller v. Craig, 83 Ky. 623; 4 Am. St. Rep. 179. In Grayson v. Weddle, 80 Mo. 39, the land was not correctly described in an administrator's deed, and it was held that an assignee of the purchaser, the latter having paid the purchase money, which was applied in discharge of the debts of the decedent, was entitled to a decree in equity correcting the error and divesting the legal title to the land out of the heirs of the decedent and vesting it in him. So, where a tract of land not in fact sold, and for which no consideration was paid or intended to be paid, was, by mistake, included in the report of sales, it was held, in Stites v. Wiedner, 35 Ohio St. 555, that the mistake could be corrected, in equity, as against the purchaser, or his heirs, even after a confirmation of the sale, and a deed in pursuance thereof. The weight of authority, however, seems to be that an action to reform a sheriff's deed which has been improperly or defectively executed, cannot be maintained: See extended note to Bartlett v. Judd, 78 Am. Dec. 136, 137, on reforming sheriff's deed, showing that the grantee in such cases is not without remedy, but is entitled to have another deed, valid in form, and which shall conform to the facts of the case: Compare Conner v. Wells, 91 Ind. 197.

Deed for Taxes.-If property is sold for taxes, and, by mistake of the county auditor, the purchaser's deed erroneously describes the land, it cannot be reformed by suit: Keepfer v. Force, 86 Ind. 81.

Insurance Policies.-If, through fraud or mutual mistake, a policy of insurance does not contain the contract entered into between the insurer and the insured, equity has jurisdiction, at the suit of either party, to reform it, by parol testimony, to accord with the intention of the parties and will do so upon clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of such fraud or mistake. The mistake must be mutual. or there must be mistake of one party to the contract accompanied by fraud on the other's part to justify reformation: Slobodisky v. Phenix Ins. Co., 52 Neb. 395; Bryce v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 240; 14 Am. Rep. 249; Western etc. Co. v. Ward, 75 Fed Rep. 338: New York Life Ins. Co. v. McMaster, 87 Fed. Rep. 63; Commonwealth etc. Ins. Co. v. Huntzinger, 98 Pa. St. 41, 47; Tesson v. Atlantic Mut.

Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 33; 93 Am. Dec. 293; Parsons v. Hosmer, 2 Root 1; 1 Am. Dec. 58; Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Gurnee, 1 Paige, 278; 19 Am. Dec. 431; Lippincott v. Insurance Co., 3 La. 546; 23 Am. Dec. 467; Harris v. Columbiana etc. Ins. Co., 18 Ohio, 116; 51 Am. Dec. 448; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Crane, 16 Md. 260; 77 Am. Dec. 289; Stout v. City Fire Ins. Co., 12 Iowa, 371; 79 Am. Dec. 539; Bailey v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 4 McCrary, 221; Oliver v. Mutual etc. Ins. Co., 2 Curtis, 277; Fink v. Queen Ins. Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 318; Andrews v. Essex Fire Ins. Co., 3 Mason, 6, 10; German Fire Ins. Co. v. Gueck, 130 Ill. 345; 81 Ill. App. 151; Abraham v. North German Ins. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 717; Thomason v. Capital Ins. Co., 92 Iowa, 72; Fitchner v. Fidelity etc. Assn., 103 Iowa, 276; Balen v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 67 Mich 179; Spurr v. Home Ins. Co., 40 Minn. 424. It makes no difference whether the mistake is in the description of the property insured, in the name of the insured, or in some clause or covenant of the policy. A majority of the cases concern fire insurance, but equity will give relief in case of a mistake in drawing a life policy: Parsons v. Hosmer, 2 Root, 1; 1 Am. Dec. 58; or a marine policy: Andrews v. Essex etc. Ins. Co., 3 Mason, 6. If it appears that the secretary of a mutual relief association and the assured, both understood at the time of application for insurance that a certain person's name should be entered on the record as beneficiary, without further direction, the certificate of membership may be reformed after the death of the member by inserting the name of such beneficiary: Scott v. Provident etc. Assn., 63 N. H. 556. A fire policy may be reformed, even after a loss, to express the intention of the parties: Continental Ins. Co. v. Ruckman, 127 Ill. 364; 11 Am. St. Rep. 121; Esch v. Home Ins. Co., 78 Iowa, 334; 16 Am. St. Rep. 443; Keith v. Globe Ins. Co., 52 Ill. 518; 4 Am. Rep. 624; Ben Franklin Ins. Co. v. Gillett, 54 Md. 212; Snell v. Insurance Co., 98 U. S. 85; Brugger v. State Investment Co., 5 Saw. 304; and so with a marine policy: Hill v. Millville Ins. Co., 39 N. J. Eq. 66.

Equity will interpose not only in cases of fraud, but also of mistake, where an insurance policy is drawn up in a form different from the application, or anything is omitted which it is the duty of the company to insert or indorse on the instrument: National Fire Ins. Co. v. Crane, 16 Md. 260; 77 Am. Dec. 289. An application for a policy of insurance may be reformed, so as to make it conform to the representation of facts made to the insurer's agent, if the insured was misled into signing an application containing a wrong statement by the action of such agent: Harris v. Columbiana etc. Ins. Co., 18 Ohio, 116; 51 Am. Dec. 448. The existence of fraud and mistake is a matter of proof. It is an inference to be drawn from the proof of obvious facts and circumstances from which the principal fact in controversy may be inferred. The insertion of a clause, foreign to the contract, in a policy of Insurance, if purposely done, gives room for an inference of fraud, but, though it was inserted by mistake, and that fact not discovered until just before the loss, the insured would still be entitled to have the instrument reformed so as to express the real contract: Clem v. German Ins. Co., 29 Mo. App. 666. If an answer by the insured is written by an agent of the company as made, there is no mutual mistake, and, of course, no relief for

him who warranted the answer to be true, unless the agent deceived him into the making of it; but if the agent, intending to write an answer to his question as made by the applicant, writes something else, and the paper is signed, both believing the answer correctly written, there is a mutual mistake, and the policy may be reformed: Commonwealth etc. Ins. Co. v. Huntzinger, 98 Pa. St. 41. 47. If the agent, by a mistake of law, adopts the wrong form of policy to protect the interests of the insured, who has correctly stated his interests in the property, and distinctly asked for insurance thereon, the policy may, after loss, be reformed in equity so as to express the intention of the parties: Esch v. Home Ins. Co., 78 Iowa, 334; 16 Am. St. Rep. 443. The insured has a right to rely on the agent's writing the policy in accordance with the contract, and it has been held that, even if he fails to read the policy, and discover the omission therein, he is not guilty of such negligence as will bar him of the right to have a policy reformed by inserting an omitted provision therein: Barnes v. Hekla Fire Ins. Co., 75 Iowa, 11; 9 Am. St. Rep. 450; Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Lunkenheimer, 127 Ind. 536; that If an applicant for insurance relies upon an insurance agent to write down his answers, and he signs the application after the agent has done so, without reading it, he is not negligent, though the answers are wrong; that it is immaterial whether the agent acted dishonestly or mistakenly; and that it is not necessary to reform such an application in order to secure a recovery on the policy: Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Lunkenheimer, 127 Ind. 536. But there is strong authority to the effect that it is the duty of the insured to read and know the contents of his policy before accepting it; and that if one can read his policy, his failure to do so is such gross negligence as conclusively estops him from denying knowledge of its contents, unless he was dissuaded from reading it by some trick, artifice or fraud of the other party to the agreement: New York Life Ins. Co. v. McMaster, 87 Fed. Rep. 63, 67, reversing McMaster v. New York Life Ins. Co., 78 Fed. Rep. 33; and see McCormick v. Orient Ins. Co., 86 Cal. 260. A suit may be maintained, after a loss, to reform a policy so as to conform it to the agreement made with the insured before its issuance, and a recovery may be had in the same suit upon the policy as thus reformed: Continental Ins. Co. v. Ruckman, 127 Ill. 364; 11 Am. St. Rep. 121. The existence of a remedy at law cannot defeat the reformation of a contract of insurance, unless it is adequate and as efficacious as the remedy in equity: Western etc. Co. v. Ward, 75 Fed. Rep. 338. If, by accident, mistake, or design, a policy is made payable to a person by a wrong name, he may sue in his true name, without a reformation of the contract, by averring that the policy was made to him in the name therein appearing: Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bell, 166 Ill. 400; 57 Am. St. Rep. 140. The slip or application for insurance is admissible, in equity, to correct the policy: Dow v. Whetten, 8 Wend. 160. The indorsements thereon, showing its acceptance by the company, are admissible: Lippincott v. Insurance Co., 3 La. Ann. 546; 23 Am. Dec. 467.

But while an insurance policy, like any other written contract, may be impeached by either party thereto for fraud or mistake,

equity will refuse to reform the contract if the evidence is insufficient to establish fraud on one side and mistake on the other, or mutual mistake. It must be shown that the agreement states less or more than was intended by the parties, or that there was some fraud or imposition whereby an unconscionable advantage was or may be had by one party over the other. Otherwise there can be no refor mation: Avery v. Equitable Life etc. Soc., 117 N. Y. 451; Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Wood, 50 Neb. 381; St. Paul etc. Ins. Co. v. Shaver, 76 Iowa. 282; McCormick v. Orient Ins. Co., 86 Cal. 260; Bowers v. New York Life Ins. Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 785; Mitchell v. Capital etc. Ins. Co., 110 Ala. 583; Farmville Ins. etc. Co. v. Butler, 55 Md. 233; Spare v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 14; Hearne v. Marine Ins. Co., 20 Wall. 488, 491; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Fed. Rep. 762, involving an accident policy. A policy of insurance cannot, it seems, be reformed by parol evidence of mistake, to the extent of altering a warranty. Nor can it be reformed for mistake of the insured alone; and evidence that the agent of the company, who filled out the application, the representations of which were made a warranty, was also mistaken, does not show a mutual mistake for which the policy will be reformed: Cooper v. Farmers' etc. Ins. Co., 50 Pa. St. 299; 88 Am. Dec. 544. Compare Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Lunkenheimer, 127 Ind. 536. It has been held that a misdescription of the land on which insured houses stand will not defeat a recovery in case of loss by fire, because the court looks at the real contract of the parties, which was to insure certain property of the policyholder; and that it is not necessary to reform the policy to entitle the insured to recover: Phenix Ins. Co. v. Gebhart, 32 Neb. 144; but it is held in Collins v. St. Paul etc. Ins. Co., 44 Minn. 440, that if the parties Intended insurance to be on buildings upon section 32, but the policy insured buildings on section 31, no recovery could be had for a loss to buildings on section 32, without a reformation of the policy. So, there can be no recovery on an accident policy, dated at a certain time, time for an injury accruing prior to that time, until the policy is reformed: Fowler v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., 100 Ga. 330, 333. Mortgages.-A court of equity will, upon parol testimony, reform a mortgage or deed of trust to secure a debt, which fails to express the intention of the parties, on account of mutual mistake, or mistake on one side accompanied by fraud on the other, where the evidence of it is clear, convincing, and satisfactory: Rainey v. Allison, 64 Tex. 697; De Peyster v. Hasbrouck, 11 N. Y. 582; Andrews v. Gillespie, 47 N. Y. 487; Ramsey v. Smith, 32 N. J. Eq. 28; Straman v. Rechtine, 58 Ohio St. 443; Merrifield v. Ingersoll, 61 Mich. 4; Morisey v. Swinson, 104 N. C. 555; 106 N. C. 221; Michigan Buggy Co. v. Woodson, 59 Mo. App. 550; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Judy, 146 Ind. 822; Wilson v. Stewart, 63 Ind. 294; Savings etc. Soc. v. Meeks, 66 Cal. 371; Allen v. Elder, 76 Ga. 674; 2 Am. St. Rep. 63; Strang v. Beach, 11 Ohio St. 283; 78 Am. Dec. 308; Denver etc. Mfg. Co. v. McAllister, 6 Colo. 261. It makes no difference whether the mistake is in a matter of description, a name, or some other particular. A misdescription of the mortgaged property may be reformed: Giselman v. Starr, 106 Cal. 651; Strang v. Beach, 11 Ohio St. 283; 78 Am.

Dec. 208; Carpenter Paper Co. v. Wilcox, 50 Neb. 659; Peck v. Osteen, 37 Fla. 427. A mortgage given on one lot may be reformed to cover another: Way v. Roth, 159 Ill. 162; Sowler v. Day, 58 Iowa, 252. In other words, it may be reformed to cover the land intended, whether more or less: Utterson Lumber Co. v. Rennie, 21 Can. Sup. Ct. 218; Tichenor v. Yankey, 89 Ky. 508; Way v. Roth, 159 Ill. 162. It may be reformed to correctly describe the date of maturity of the note secured by it: Commercial Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 16 Wash. 536. A homestead mortgage executed by a husband and wife in conformity with the Alabama statute may be reformed in equity for mistake in describing one of the subdivisions of land, if the quantity of land conveyed is not thereby increased: Witherington v. Mason, 86 Ala. 345; 11 Am. St. Rep. 41; and, if a husband and wife agree to mortgage their homestead, and execute a mortgage which they know does not include the whole thereof, but which they know is accepted by the mortgagee in the belief that it includes all such homestead, the mortgage may be reformed in equity so as to include all the land which was agreed to be mortgaged: Stevens v. Holman, 112 Cal. 345; 53 Am. St. Rep. 216. A mortgage which describes the land intended to be mortgaged by metes and bounds may be reformed, if it appears that it was the intention of the parties to mortgage a tract upon which certain buildings stood, and that, by mutual mistake, the land was so described as to indicate only a portion of the buildings: Jenkins v. Jenkins University, 17 Wash. 160, 173. A mortgage which was intended to convey a fee but which, through ignorance or mistake, covers only a life estate, may be reformed in equity: Lardner v. Williams, 98 Wis. 514.

A mortgage or deed of trust to secure a debt may be so reformed as to correct a mistake in the name of the mortgagor or mortgagee, or in omitting either name: Collins v. Cornwell, 131 Ind. 20; Parlin v. Stone, 1 McCrary, 443; Hitesman v. Donnel, 40 Ohio St. 287; Martin v. Nixon, 92 Mo. 26.

A mistake in a mortgage may sometimes be corrected after a decree of foreclosure or sale, where the rights of third parties have not intervened: First Nat. Bank v. Wentworth, 28 Kan. 183; Conyers v. Mericles, 75 Ind. 443; Jones v. Sweet, 77 Ind. 187, to include property intended to be included therein, but which was inadvertently omitted: Phillips v. Roquemore, 96 Ga. 719. Thus, if the description of the mortgaged premises is, by mutual mistake, so defective that no title will pass under a sale, or if, in consequence of such mistake, land is described which does not belong to the mortgagor, instead of land which does, there may be a reformation of the mortgage, even after sale: Ray v. Ferrell, 127 Ind. 570. In First Nat. Bank v. Wentworth, 28 Kan. 183, 188, it is held that the duty of a court of equity to correct a mistake in a mortgage is coextensive with the mistake, and extends, not merely to the reformation of the original instrument, but also to all subsequent proceedings, papers, judgments, and decrees into which the mistake, as a mistake is carried; but in Conyers v. Mericles, 75 Ind. 443, it is held that, if an incorrect description of lands intended to be mortgaged is carried into the judgment, order of sale, notice, and sheriff's deed, such pro

« AnteriorContinuar »