Legal Opinion
Burlingham v. Hanrahan
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 12, 1931PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLytle, J.
The plaintiff has brought this action to reform a certain writing purporting to restrict the plaintiff in the use of his property for a certain number of years on the ground that the writing does not express the real agreement of the parties because of a mutual mistake and the mistake of the draftsman and scrivener who prepared the formal document purporting to express the agreement of the parties.
*513It appears that on or about March 30, 1920, the plaintiff and Cornelia M. Burlingham, his wife, were the owners in fee of the northwest corner lot of Hertel and Parkside avenues in the city of…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Howland v. BlakeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Born v. . SchrenkeisenNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Sprague v. . CochranNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Central Trust Co v. West India Improvement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Andrews v. . GillespieNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- LE Myers Co. v. Harbor Insurance Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1978
- Great Atlantic Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
- St. Paul Mercury Insurance v. FosterDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 2003
- Kalisch v. Maple Trade Finance Corp. (In Re Kalisch)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Vogel v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.