Bradley v. Cornwall

Sobeloff, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Neighbors at Shady Side on the south shore of West River are here contesting over a narrow strip of waterfront land. For clarity the diagram below is included, as it reproduces a portion of a plat prepared in 1925 by Edward Hall, Jr., surveyor. The plat is recorded among the Land Records of Anne Arundel County and all the deeds pertinent to this case make reference to it. ³¹ The precise subject matter of the controversy is the strip bounded on the north by the water’s edge and on the south by the northernmost line of lots 3 and 4.

Not involved in the dispute is any land west of lot 4 or its westernmost line if extended to the water; also not involved is the land east of the western line of lot 2 or the extension of that line to the water’s edge. The appellants are Miss Margaret M. Bradley, record owner of lots 1 and 2, who is said to hold title for herself and her brother, Dr. James F. Bradley. The appellees are Ernest S. Cornwall and his wife, owners of lots 3 and 4. Both parties derive title under mesne deeds from the original owners, Louis A. Woodfield and Bertha Woodfield, his wife, the grandparents of Mrs. Cornwall.

Lots 1 and 2 have been in the hands of several owners between the Woodfields and the Bradleys, and lots 3 and 4 passed out of the Woodfield family and back again. It is undisputed that, notwithstanding the north line of lots 1 and 2 appearing on the plat, the deed to Miss Bradley in 1945 specifically included the land lying between these lots and the river. The deed runs to the low water mark of West River. It is equally clear that the appellees, the Cornwalls, were originally granted lots 3 and 4, only to the line shown on the plat as the northern line of their lots.

Shortly before the suit was begun by the appellees in 1952, however, they obtained a quit-claim deed from Mrs. Woodfield, who had been widowed in 1939, for that portion of the strip which lies opposite lots 3 and 4, thus extending these lots to the water. But the Bradleys had previously, in 1945, purchased from Mrs. Woodfield the area called the “Grove” and she conveyed it to them in a deed that referred to the plat but gave no description by metes and bounds, courses and distances. There is nothing in the deed or in the plat that gives any indication as to the precise acreage intended to be conveyed. The present dispute arises because the Bradleys claim that the “Grove” ³² included not only the land that adjoins lot 4 on the west but also the land in controversy, on the theory that the “Grove” is L-shaped and includes the entire strip along the river’s edge lying between lots 3 and 4 and the water.

It is the Bradleys’ contention that the quit-claim deed made by Mrs. Woodfield to her granddaughter, Mrs. Cornwall, and to Mr. Cornwall, conveyed nothing for the grantor had already disposed of the land opposite lots 3 and 4 to Miss Bradley as part of the “Grove”. We give this simplified, perhaps over-simplified, statement of the nature of the case, without setting forth the intermediate conveyances, because we think this is sufficiently accurate for present purposes and preferable to a detailed recital of these instruments which would unnecessarily complicate the story and would serve no useful purpose. We shall, however, refer later to such material in these documents as becomes pertinent. The Cornwalls brought suit in equity against the Bradleys to obtain a construction of the deed to the “Grove”, and to obtain a determination that the deed did not transfer the disputed land as part of the “Grove” and that it is theirs under the quit-claim deed made to them by Mrs. Woodfield in 1952.

In the alternative, if the Court should disagree with their interpretation as to the extent of the “Grove” and hold that the deed to the Bradleys did legally convey the strip of shore land in front of lots 3 and 4, then the appellees sought reformation of the deed so as to make it conform to the claimed intention of the Woodfields to convey nothing-east of the extension of the western outline of lot 4. It was testified by Mrs. Woodfield that the strip lying between the four lots and the river was laid out to serve as a road for those purchasing lots in the development. Apparently the “Grove” was originally intended by the Woodfields to be used as a common; but this intention was never carried out in any way and was completely abandoned when Mrs. Woodfield sold the ³³ “Grove” to the Bradleys in 1945. It seems that no lots other than 1 to 4 had been sold in the subdivision.

Before the Bradleys’ purchase a sea wall was erected in front of lots 1 and 2. There was no sea wall in front of lots 3 and 4. Shortly after the Bradleys purchased the “Grove” their contractor constructed a sea wall along the river shore from the west line of the “Grove” (or rather an extension of that line,) and the wall ran easterly until it reached a point opposite the west line of lot 4, when it turned at a right angle. The Corn-walls point to this as evidence that the Bradleys must have realized that the “Grove” did not include the strip in front of lots 3 and 4, as now claimed, and that the Bradleys built the wall to serve the “Grove” property exclusive of the strip in front of lots 3 and 4.

Dr. Bradley testified that the turn in the direction of the sea wall was due to the contractor’s misunderstanding of his instructions, and that his orders were to connect the west line of the “Grove” with the sea wall in front of lots 1 and 2 so as to enclose the strip opposite lots 3 and 4. After some delay the wall was completed in 1949 so that it then ran continuously along the river in front of the “Grove” and the four numbered lots. Then in 1950, over the objection of Mrs. Hallock (who is the daughter of Mrs. Woodfield and the mother of Mrs. Cornwall), Dr. Bradley proceeded to fill the area behind the sea wall. When the wall was built in front of lots 3 and 4, these lots were owned by a Mr. George Edward Bierach, who did not protest.

It is not definitely shown whether he knew of the work when it was in progress for he was living in Washington. Mrs. Hallock was not the owner of lots 3 and 4 when the fill was begun by Dr. Bradley, but the appellees, her daughter and son-in-law, had just recently purchased the lots from Bierach, and her protest against the fill may be presumed to have been made for them. The predicament in which the parties find themselves is due in considerable measure to loose conveyancing and to other carelessness. It was testified that the ³⁴ contract for the sale of lots 3 and 4 by- the Woodfields to the original purchaser, a Mr. Lanigan, was made in 1926.

It called for lots extending to the river. No deed was made till 1930, and then Mrs. Hallock, who in the meantime had become the owner of the lots, carried out the contract made by her parents. Unlike the contract the- deed conveyed lots that did not go to the river, but only to the north line as shown on the plat. Mr. Lanigan accepted the deed and for many years, even after the discovery of the discrepancy, neither he nor the later owners, who are the predecessors in title of the Cornwalls, raised the point.

Nothing was done by the successive owners to make any correction in the deed. In the meantime the Bradleys spent money on the wall. The Bradleys, on the other hand, were also not very cautious in respect to their property holdings, for they accepted a deed to the “Grove” which merely made reference to a plat that did not clearly define what was included in that designation. It was testified by Dr. Bradley that he negotiáted with Mrs. Woodfield for this property not on the ground but with the plat before them.

He' admitted on the witness stand that she did not specifically say whether the strip now in dispute was or was not included in the “Grove”. The merest glance should have indicated to the purchaser- that the boundaries of the property were at least ambiguous. A notable feature of the plat is that it does not show where the eastern boundary of the “Grove” lies. The western line of lot 4 is the eastern boundary of the “Grove” up to the northern line of lot 4; but there is no line extending the division line between the “Grove” and lot 4 to the river.

The question thus arising, “what did the deed to the ‘Grove’ embrace?” is the principal question in this case. The appellees contend that it conveyed nothing east of -the western line of lot 4, despite the absence of a line delineating the eastern boundary of the “Grove”. The appellants maintain that the failure of the draftsman ³⁵ to close the line between the “Grove” and lot 4 by extending it to the river signified an intention to include in the “Grove” the entire strip opposite lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. As to this, the appellees argue that if the Bradleys can claim under the “Grove” deed any part of the strip, why should they stop with the piece lying north of the four numbered lots; why not, just as logically, extend the claim to include land east of lot 1, which is likewise not cut off by any line on the plat?

Yet the Bradleys do not assert that the strip intended to be conveyed with the “Grove” runs beyond lot 1 on the east. It will be noted from the above diagram that the area lying west of lot 4 has on it certain dots which presumably indicate trees on the “Grove”. These dots extend around and are shown in the strip north of lot 4. From this it has been argued by the appellants that the plat treats the land in question as a part of the “Grove” and that it was conveyed by Mrs. Woodfield to Miss Bradley.

A look at the diagram makes it at once obvious that the appellants’ argument, if accepted, would still not avail them as to that part of the strip which lies north of lot 3 for no dots appear opposite that lot. Moreover, the dots on the plat do not end in a straight line to correspond with an extension of the eastern outline of lot 4. It would seem not unreasonable to infer that the draftsman placed these dots more or less at random and that they are to be taken as a general indication only, like an architect’s imaginative drawing of shrubbery embellishing a structure to be erected. No one understands such representations literally to indicate the future location of the plantings.

The surveyor in this case, we think, had no thought thereby to define the outline of the “Grove”. Testimony was offered to show that while the “Grove” had trees, there were actually no trees on the strip north of lot 4, thus completely refuting the appellants’ argument on this point. Complete consistency is not to be found on either side. At least as to one former owner of lots 3 and 4, ³⁶ Mr. Bierach, who has been mentioned above, there is striking evidence that he had knowledge that the strip of shore land