From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Christopher v. Goode

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 23, 1933
146 So. 881 (Ala. 1933)

Opinion

8 Div. 453.

March 23, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; James E. Horton, Judge.

Fred Wall, of Athens, for appellant.

A bill for reformation must not only aver that a mistake was made in the instrument as executed and delivered, but it must also be made to appear that there was mutuality of mistake. Webb v. Spratt, 225 Ala. 600, 144 So. 569. Very great particularity of averment is required and very clear proof necessary to authorize reformation of a written contract. Dexter v. Ohlander, 95 Ala. 467, 10 So. 527; Campbell v. Hatchett, 55 Ala. 548; Turner v. Kelly, 70 Ala. 85; Camper v. Rice, 201 Ala. 579, 78 So. 923; Brumfield v. Hall, 215 Ala. 515, 110 So. 898; Parra v. Cooper, 213 Ala. 341, 104 So. 827; Lipham v. Shamblee, 205 Ala. 498, 88 So. 569.

J. G. Rankin, of Athens, for appellee.

The bill is sufficient and meets all the requirements of the authorities cited by appellant.


The bill seeks reformation of description in a mortgage and its foreclosure. No fraud is charged and the reformation rests upon the theory of a mutual mistake. Its sufficiency in this respect is the only matter here presented.

We recognize the rule, as noted by appellant's counsel, requiring particularity of averment in cases of this character (Webb v. Sprott, 225 Ala. 600, 144 So. 569); but our cases are to the effect the rule does not call for a strained and unreasonable construction of the language used or undue refinement or nicety of pleading. The bill is to be construed as a whole, and its wording given a reasonable and not unnatural construction. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lassetter, 224 Ala. 649, 141 So. 645; Eastis v. Beasley, 214 Ala. 651, 108 So. 763; Warren v. Crow, 195 Ala. 568, 71 So. 92; Camper v. Rice, 201 Ala. 579, 78 So. 923. So considered, the bill, with particular reference to the averments found in paragraph 4, sufficiently meets the requirements of our rule of pleading.

The decree is correct, and will accordingly be here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Christopher v. Goode

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 23, 1933
146 So. 881 (Ala. 1933)
Case details for

Christopher v. Goode

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER v. GOODE

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Mar 23, 1933

Citations

146 So. 881 (Ala. 1933)
146 So. 881

Citing Cases

Gilmore v. Sexton

Harwood Parsons, of Fairfield, for appellees. Allegations of the bill as amended are sufficient as to mutual…

Foster v. Williamson

In such case equity will reform. Christopher v. Goode, 226 Ala. 338, 146 So. 881; Collier v. Ogburn-Davison…