Seegleken

This action was brought to reform a deed. Plaintiff avers that it purchased from the defendants a tract of land, which the complaint specifically describes, for the consideration of $1,000, which was then paid to the defendants ; that on the day on which it paid said money to defendants they executed a deed to it, intending thereby to convey the tract of land above alluded to, but, through the mistake of the scrivener in writing the deed, they in fact conveyed to plaintiff, contrary to the agreement and understanding of the grantors and grantee, another tract, which is also specifically described in the complaint; that the mistake was not discovered by plaintiff for several months after the execution of the deed; that defendants refused to rectify the mistake by executing a deed for the tract of land which plaintiff purchased ; wherefore plaintiff demands a decree that the deed be reformed, and for such relief as may be just and equitable. The answer is a general denial. The court found for plaintiff all the facts averred in the complaint, but it also found that, as part of the consideration for the deed, plaintiff agreed to give to defendants a sufficient cattle-way from their…