Opinion
October 7, 1960.
November 15, 1960.
Equity — Deeds — Reformation — Inequitable result.
A court of equity will not reform a deed where the reformation will produce an inequitable result.
Argued October 7, 1960. Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, March T., 1960, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, No. 5349, in equity, in case of Rose Witherow et al. v. Thomas Vlachos et ux. Decree affirmed; reargument refused December 15, 1960.
Equity. Before WEINER, J.
Adjudication filed directing that judgment of nonsuit be entered against plaintiffs; plaintiffs' exceptions to adjudication dismissed and decree entered. Plaintiffs appealed.
Walter W. Riehl, with him Patrick C. Derrico, for appellants.
Thomas L. Anderson, with him Chris Vlachos, for appellees.
These are appeals from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County which sustained the granting of a nonsuit.
The plaintiffs [appellants] filed a complaint in equity to reform a deed given by their deceased grandfather in his lifetime. They allege a gross misdescription of the land conveyed because of a mutual mistake. The chancellor, after hearing testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses and the offers of counsel, entered a nonsuit. Exceptions were taken to this ruling. The court en banc, one judge dissenting, dismissed the exceptions and sustained the grant of the nonsuit. This appeal followed.
To grant the requested reformation would leave the innocent defendants with a useless odd shaped lot — a lot which in shape and size would not conform to the alleged intention of the parties to the original conveyance. A deed should not be reformed where the result would be inequitable. See Uniontown Savings Loan Co. v. Alicia Land Co. et al., 338 Pa. 227, 13 A.2d 65 (1940); Lenheim v. Smith, 54 Pa. Super. 147 (1913). We are, therefore, in accord with the result reached by the lower court.
Decree affirmed at appellants' cost.