Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Miss. 340

Peques v. Mosby

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1846

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1846-11-15

In error, from the circuit court of Marshall county; Hon. James M. Howrey, judge. On the 10th August, 1842, William Peques sued Joseph Mosby and Robert G. Kyle upon two promissory notes, for $1280 each, dated the 13th December, 1838, one due the first January, 1840, and the other first January, 1841; the defendants plead non assumpsit; a trial was had and verdict rendered for them. Several bills of exception were sealed during the progress of the-trial.

Relies on Bell v. Morse

Decided 1846-11-15

Mr. Justice Clayton

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Peques sold a tract of land to the defendants, and gave a bond to make title, when the purchase-money should be paid. Suit was brought upon two of the notes executed for the purchase-money, and the plea of non assumpsit filed. On the trial the defendants offered proof to show that the plaintiff never had title to the land mentioned in the title-bond. The plaintiff then offered to prove, by parol, that there was a mistake in the description of the land contained in the title bond, and that the defendants were placed in possession of the land really sold, which they had ever since enjoyed without disturbance, and that the notes were executed for that land.

¶3This evidence was objected to, and excluded by the court. To this, exceptions were filed. Several instructions were asked on the part of the plaintiff, which were refused by the court, and a verdict was rendered for defendants. A writ of error thence brings the case to this court.

¶4Parol evidence to show that a mistake exists in a deed or written instrument, and to correct that mistake, is not admissible in a court of law. Upon a bill filed in chancery to correct the mistake, and to reform the deed, such evidence may be received, since it is one of the acknowledged heads of equity jurisdiction to correct mistakes. Marquis of Townsend v. Stargroom, 6 Ves.; Clowes v. Higginson, 1 Ves. & Bea.; Gris, on Eq. Ev. 205; 2 Hum. 72; 1 Greenl. on Ev. 358, § 296; 1 Story *347Eq. 164, 175: Ratcliffe v. Alison, 3 Ran. 537; Hunt v. Rousmanier, 1 Peters, 1; 3 Phil. Ev. 1429—1434; 6 N. H. 205. The instructions asked for and refused, assert the proposition that the right to enforce payment is distinct and independent from the ability to make title, and hence the want of title cannot be used as a defence. These charges were properly withheld. Courts will construe covenants to be dependent, unless a contrary intention clearly appears. Gardner v. King, 2 Iredell; Stockton v. George, 7 How. 175. A party is not thus forced to pay out his money, unless he can get that for which he stipulated. In this instance the party must seek his relief in equity.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/15/miss/340 · .json · Public domain