Patch v. White
6 S. Ct. 617, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1828, 117 U.S. 210 (1886)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will contains an erroneous description of a devised property, extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify the property the testator intended to convey if the evidence reveals a latent ambiguity and establishes the testator's intent with demonstrative certainty.
Facts:
- James Walker executed a will intending to dispose of his entire estate.
- The will devised to his brother, Henry Walker, 'lot numbered six, in square four hundred and three, together with the improvements thereon erected.'
- James Walker never owned lot 6 in square 403.
- The real lot 6 in square 403 was unimproved.
- At the time of his death, James Walker did own 'lot number 3, in square 406.'
- The lot Walker owned (3 in 406) had a dwelling house on it and was occupied by tenants.
- Without this specific devise being corrected, Henry Walker would be largely unprovided for in the will's distribution of real estate.
- Lot 3 in square 406 was not otherwise disposed of in the will.
Procedural Posture:
- John Patch, claiming title under the will's devisee Henry Walker, brought an action of ejectment in the trial court for the District of Columbia.
- At trial, the judge held that the parol evidence offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to control the will's description and instructed the jury to find for the defendant.
- The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting in General Term, affirmed the trial court's ruling and entered judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiff, John Patch, then brought a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is parol (extrinsic) evidence admissible to correct a misdescription of a parcel of land in a will when the testator did not own the property as described, but did own a different property that largely aligns with the will's overall intent and other descriptive elements?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bradley
Yes. Parol evidence is admissible to correct a misdescription of property in a will when it reveals a latent ambiguity. A latent ambiguity arises when the will contains a misdescription of the subject of a gift, such as devising property the testator does not own. In such cases, extrinsic evidence of the testator's circumstances and property holdings is admissible to ascertain the manifest intent of the will. Applying the maxim 'Falsa demonstratio non nocet' (a false description does not harm), the court can disregard the erroneous parts of the description if enough remains to identify the intended property with demonstrative certainty. Here, the testator's ownership of lot 3 in square 406, the presence of improvements on it, and his intent to provide for his brother all point to a clear but mistaken description, allowing the court to correct the error and give effect to the devise.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Woods
No. Parol evidence is inadmissible to correct a clear, unambiguous description in a will, even if it reveals the testator made a mistake. The description 'lot numbered six, in square four hundred and three' is precise and identifies a real, existing parcel of land; there is no ambiguity in the language itself. The fact that the testator did not own the lot does not create a latent ambiguity in the devise's description, but rather demonstrates a mistake by the testator. Admitting extrinsic evidence to correct a mistake, as opposed to resolving an ambiguity, violates the Statute of Frauds, which requires a will to be in writing. This decision improperly reforms the will based on conjecture about the testator's intent, rather than construing the unambiguous document he actually executed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of the latent ambiguity doctrine to encompass situations of clear misdescription, prioritizing the testator's perceived intent over a strict adherence to the will's literal text. By allowing courts to correct what appear to be obvious factual errors, the ruling moves away from the rigid distinction between interpretation (permissible) and reformation (impermissible) of a will. This creates flexibility to prevent a devise from failing due to a scrivener's error, but it also potentially introduces uncertainty into property law by allowing unambiguous, recorded documents to be challenged by parol evidence of intent, as highlighted by the dissent.
Unlock the full brief for Patch v. White