Executors of Getman v. Beardsley
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill was ¡filed to correct a mistake charged to have arisen in drawing an agreement between testator and defendant, respecting the payment of certain moneys by the defendant to Dirick Van Schelluyne, for and on behalf of the testator.
Read the full summary
THE bill was ¡filed to correct a mistake charged to have arisen in drawing an agreement between testator and defendant, respecting the payment of certain moneys by the defendant to Dirick Van Schelluyne, for and on behalf of the testator. The mistake charged was, that in the agreement that the defendant should pay to the said Dirick 3,000 dollars by such a day, and the further sum of 5,250 dollars, in two equal annual payments, the words with the interest thereon, &c., were omitted to be added to the last sum. The mistake was denied in the answer, and proof taken on both sides. Among other…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There is no clear and certain evidence of any_such mistake ails charged in the bill. The weight of evidence is decidedly the other way. The bill must, accordingly, be dismissed. It cannot be retained on the ground that the instalments paid by the defendant to Van Schelluyne, were not paid at the times stipulated, and, therefore, intervening interest is due. The bill was brought to correct an alleged mistake, and nothing else, and if any such interest is due, (and the better opinion is that there is none,) the party’s remedy was clear and perfect at law. The only difficulty in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ewell v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Hamlin v. BenderNew York Supreme Court · 1915