LORETTA VERONICA GROVER
v.
JAMES B. GROVER AND MINNIE E. WOLFE, A FEME SOLE

Fla. | 1940-11-22
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur., Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment., Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
144 Fla. 787 Florida Supreme Court (1940) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 198 So. 680
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Terrell, C. J.

Terrell, C. J.

This is a suit to reform a deed and remove cloud from title because of a clerical error by the scrivener. It was not a case of mutual error.

Several questions are argued but all turn on the fact of whether or not the chancellor properly interpreted the evidence.

The chancellor sustained exceptions to the master’s report, denied reformation an'd dismissed the bill. We think the chancellor was in error. The evidence as a whole amply supports the prayer for reformation which should have been granted.

Reversed.

Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.

Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.

Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Itvenus, Inc. v. Poultry, Inc., 258 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
    …y, Florida, was omitted from a deed because of a scrivener’s error and we hold there was no error committed in reforming the deed to include the South 35 feet. See Jacobs v. Parodi, 50 Fla. 541, 39 So. 833 (1905); and Grover v. Grover, 144 Fla. 787, 198 So. 680 (1940). The final judgment found the purchasers (Udell) were not estopped from asserting set-offs against the assignee of the original mortgage. It is conceded that the assignees were not holders in due course as the mortgage contained language whi…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw