Equity Jurisdiction, Mistake. Contract, In writing.
Where, after the agent of the owner of a lot of land, known as lot V on a certain plan, has pointed it out on the ground to a prospective purchaser and through an honest mistake has shown the boundary lines as including a larger area than the plan described, an agreement in writing for the sale of the lot is signed by the owner and the purchaser in which the lot is described merely as "Lot V" on the designated plan, and afterwards a deed is delivered which by metes and bounds correctly describes lot V, and the purchaser thereafter enters upon a strip of land, not included in the deed but previously pointed out by the agent of the grantor as to be included, and uses it for gardening purposes, the purchaser cannot maintain a suit in equity to have the deed corrected by reason of the alleged mutual mistake, even if the defendant owns the strip of land not conveyed; nor, there being no fraud involved and no breach of an agreement to convey other than lot V as shown on the plan, can he recover damages in such a suit.
BRALEY, J.
We assume from the findings of the judge that the plaintiff, relying thereon, was induced to purchase the land described in the bill through the representations of the defendant's agent as to the location of the boundary line in the rear of the property. The agent was honestly mistaken, and upon comparison of the area conveyed by the description in the plaintiff's deed, with the area as it would have been if the line pointed out to the plaintiff while he and the agent were on the premises had been the true boundary line, it appears that a strip or parcel found to be approximately fifty or sixty feet long and seven feet in width is not included. But, even if the plaintiff has entered upon and improved this strip as a portion of the land, believing that he owned it, there is no contention that the written agreement entered into after the acts of the defendant's agent, as well as the deed which followed the agreement, did not accurately describe the property as lot V, on a plan of the defendant's land duly recorded. The bill alleges, that the description in these instruments is the result of a mutual mistake which he prays may be so corrected as to include the strip, or in the alternative for damages sustained by reason of the omission. It is plain that specific performance cannot be decreed, for there was no agreement in writing covering the strip, and in the absence of fraud, which is neither alleged nor shown by the evidence, there is no enforceable claim for damages. Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24. Tracy v. Blinn, 236 Mass. 585. Curran v. Magee, 244 Mass. 1, 5. The decree awarding damages is therefore reversed, and a decree is to be entered dismissing the bill.
Ordered accordingly.