
    (87 South. 521)
    TRAYLOR et ux. v. CLAYTON et al.
    (7 Div. 104.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Feb. 3, 1921.)
    1. Reformation of instruments <§= 13(1)— Misdescription in deed will be corrected by court of equity.-
    Where defendants’ answer and the evidence showed a misdescription in a deed, the error will be coi'rected by court of equity.
    2. Reformation of instruments <&wkey;>43 — Party seeking to bave condition inserted in deed has burden of proof.
    In a suit to correct an error in the description of a' deed, defendants, who sought to have added to the.habendum clause a provision for reversion, had the burden of proof.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County ; W. W. I-Iarralson, Judge.
    Bill by O. W. Clayton and others, as trustees, against O. R: Traylor and wife, to correct a description in a deed and to quiet title, with cross-bill by respondent seeking to have certain additions made to the habendum clause of the deed. From a decree granting relief to complainant and denying relief on the cross-bill, respondents appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Isbell, Scott & Downer, of Ft. Payne, for appellants.
    In order to constitute a conveyance, there must necessarily be both grantor and grantee. 9 Oyc. 860; 13 Cyc. 527. Counsel discuss the evidence, but without further citation of authority.
    A. E. Hawkins, of Ft. Payne, for appellees.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
    other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-NumDered Digests and Indexes
   MILLER, J.

This is a bill of complaint to correct error in the description of land in a deed and to quiet title thereto. In April, 1902, G-. R. Traylor and his wife, T. A. Traylor, executed deed to complainants to a certain tract of land, describing it as being in S. E. Vi of S. E. Vi of section 32, township- 5, range 8, in De Kalb county, when in fact it was in the S. E, % of N. E. Vi of said section 32.

The defendants file answer and cross-bill, and seek thereby to also correct error in said deed, and have inserted therein the following:

“That the property should revert back to the grantors when it ceased to be used for school purposes; that the deed was executed in blank, with the understanding that it should be so inserted.”

The answer of the defendants and all the testimony clearly show that complainants are entitled to relief prayed for in their bill. Fields v. Clayton, 117 Ala. 538, 23 South. 530, 67 Am. St. Rep. 189; Houston v. Faul, 86 Ala. 232, 5 South. 433.

The evidence does not sustain the contention of the defendants in the cross-bill, and the burden is on them in that issue.

The court below properly granted the relief prayed for in the Dill of complaint, and ordered the cross-bill dismissed. This decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.  