CLARK v. JOHNSON, 214 Mich. 578-

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.

(b) Bill of Complaint.

(c) Answer of Defendants Johnson.

(d) Answer and Cross-Bill of Defendants Rogerson.

(e) Answer of Defendants Johnson to Cross-Bill of Defendants

Rogerson.

(f) Answer of Plaintiff to Cross-Bill of Defendant Rogerson.

(g) Court's Opinion, (h) Decree.

(i) Authorities Cited by Defendants Johnson-Brief for Defendants

Johnson, (j) Authorities Cited by Plaintiff-Brief for Plaintiff. CLARK v. JOHNSON, 214 Mich. 578-

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.-A bill of complaint was filed to reform a land contract wherein the scrivener in drawing the contract included the whole lot instead of the east one-half, and the vendee, although aware of this mistake, attempted to convey the whole lot to third parties. A decree for plaintiff was entered which was affirmed on appeal of defendants.

(b) Bill of Complaint.-(Caption.) Frank L. Clark and Hannah Clark, his wife, respectfully show unto the court as follows, to-wit:

1. That they are husband and wife and reside in the Village of Birmingham, Oakland County, Michigan, and are of the age of 21 years and upwards.

2. That theretofore, to-wit, on or about the 17th day of August, in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, they acquired title by warranty deed from Warren Clizbe and wife of the following described property, to-wit:

The east one-half and the west one-quarter of a parcel of land situate in the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 36, town 2 north, range 10 east, beginning at an iron stake on the south line of Landon street 84 feet west from an iron stake at the northern apex of lot 16, Grove plat, thence westerly on south line of Landon street 80 feet, to an iron stake, thence south 104 feet and 7 inches to an iron stake, which is 106 feet north of north line of Lincoln avenue, thence east parallel with Lincoln avenue 80 feet, to an iron stake, thence north to Landon street at the point of beginning.

Situated in the Village of Birmingham, Oakland County, Michigan, as appears by the terms of a certain warranty deed dated August 17. 1916, and recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds for Oakland County, in Liber 288 of deeds on page 257; reference being had thereto for greater certainty.

3. And these plaintiffs further show unto the court that on or about the 28th day of October, 1916, they entered into a land contract with Abner T. Klees and Mabel Klees, his wife, of Birmingham, Michigan, for the sale of the easterly 40 feet of the lands described in said deed, and that the said Abner T. Klees and Mabel Klees, in pursuance of said land contract, went into possession of said premises. That said land contract was duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds for the county of Oakland on the 1st day of February, 1918, in Liber 312 of deeds, pages 449 and 450; reference being had thereto for greater certainty. That at the time said contract was drawn, there was an error in the description of the lands intended to be sold and contracted for. That it was the intent and the express understanding and agreement of all the parties, that plaintiffs were contracting to convey, and Abner T. Klees and wife were contracting to purchase the easterly 40 feet of said 80 foot strip; that the scribner, who drew the contract, by mistake copied the entire description in the deed, so that the contract purported to convey the east one-half and also the west one-half of said parcel of land. That the said Abner T. Klees and wife, however, understood that they were purchasing the east 40 feet of said property as appears by their affidavit recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds for Oakland County in connection with said land contract in Liber 312 of deeds, on page 449; reference being had thereto for greater certainty.

4. That thereafter the said Abner T. Klees and Mabel Klees, his wife, assigned their interest in said land contract to Walter F. Johnson of Birmingham, Michigan. That the time said assignment was made of said interest to the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, that it was clearly understood and agreed on the part of the said plaintiffs and the said Abner T. Klees and wife and the said Walter F. Johnson, and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, that the interest which the said Abner T. Klees and wife had in said property was an interest in the easterly 40 feet only and such assignment of said interest in said land contract was made with that express understanding and agreement and the said assignment was accepted and received by the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, with the full knowledge and understanding on their part that said assignment did not include and that said contract did not include the entire 80-foot parcel of land, but that it only included the easterly 40 feet and in spite of the error in the drawing of the contract, the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, were not deceived thereby but knew at the time and at all times that they were acquiring an interest in only the easterly 40 feet of said premises.

5. That notwithstanding the knowledge on the part of the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, that they had acquired no interest in said property except the easterly 40 feet thereof, and that the said plaintiffs had only contracted to convey the easterly 40 feet thereof, the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, with intent to defraud, harm, injure, and cheat these plaintiffs out of their said property, thereafter contracted with Gordon Rogerson and Emily R. Rogerson, his wife, to sell and convey, for a valuable consideration, all of the said above described lands, both the easterly and westerly half thereof and that the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, and the said Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson, his wife, had full knowledge and well knew that the said plaintiff had never sold or agreed to sell any portion of said premises, except the easterly 40 feet thereof; yet, the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson and the said Gordon Rogerson and the said Emily Rogerson, defendants herein, seeking to take advantage of the mistake of the scribner in the said land contract above referred to from plaintiffs to Abner T. Klees and wife, and seeking to cheat and defraud these plaintiffs out of their property, sought by means of the land contract between the said Walter F. Johnson and wife and the said Gordon Rogerson and wife to acquire title to the entire parcel of land and the said Gordon Rogerson and wife, by virtue of said contract with the said Walter F. Johnson and wife, have claimed to be the owner by contract of said entire parcel and so claim at this time. That they have sought to exercise the rights of ownership and possession in spite of the protest of these plaintiffs over said entire parcel of land; that they claim to be entitled to the possession of the entire parcel of property and all of said defendants refuse to permit the mistake to be corrected or rectified or the contracts modified to conform to the intention of the parties and the real facts in the case