Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1919

Grant v. Chavis

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 10, 1919 · Gary

97 S.E. 838; 111 S.C. 307; 1919 S.C. LEXIS 11 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. D.D. McColl , for appellant, submits: "Deeds may be reformed in equity if fraud or mutual mistake so as to effect the intention of the parties and this may be done upon parol evidence where the proof is clear, convincing and satisfactory. . Messrs. Stevenson, Stevenson Prince , for respondent, submit: That the defense set up is a collateral attack upon the judgment in the case of McColl v. Grant (folio 64). There is absolutely no question of what was the judgment, of what were the allegations of the pleadings, nor in deed of what was the appellant's deed. While these stand, he has no title to the respondent's interest in the land. And stand they must until assailed in a direct proceeding: 46 S.C. 490 ; 34 S.C. 452 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. Chief Justice Gary.

The appeal is from the following decree of the Circuit Court:

“The above case came on for trial before the Court and a jury, and from the pleadings and evidence the only question was a question of title in the plaintiff. The legal title was unquestionably in the plaintiff, and I instructed the jury to so find. The real defense was that there was a mistake in the sale, made on a judgment of foreclosure, whereby the defendant should have acquired a title to the land described, together with a tract of 155 acres which was actually sold, and by mistake was not so conveyed. The mortgage covered only 155 acres, and referred to the page of the record specifying the deed which the mortgagor held for the land. *309 The land in dispute in this casé was an adjoining piece, conveyed to the mortgagor, and was neve'r embraced in the mortgage which was foreclosed in the case of D. D. McColl, as Assignee, v. E. D. Grant et al. The plaintiff did not do anything which could be held to have estopped him from claiming his right in the land herein described, and. the defendant has not brought himself within any rule which would authorize the Court to deprive the plaintiff of his interest in the land, because of any mistake or on the ground of estoppel. * * *”

The appeal has failed to satisfy this Court that there was error on the part of the Circuit Court in its findings of fact. This practically disposes of the case.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.