Paisley v. Casey
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from special term. Action by John Paisley against Richard H. Casey to reform a contract whereby plaintiff agreed to pay defendant $5,213 for alterations and repairs on plaintiff’s premises. Judgment directing the amount to be reduced to $4,213, and that plaintiff recover $1,000 paid to defendant by mistake. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBischoff, J.
To entitle a party to the reformation of a written contract, it is incumbent upon him to show affirmatively either that it was executed, in respect to some material matter therein omitted or contained, under a mutual mistake, or that one of them executed it, in respect to such matter, under a mistake, and that the other was guilty of fraud or other unconscionable conduct at the time of execution by him. 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. §8 845,1376) Avery v. Assurance Soc., 117 N. Y. 451, 458, 23 N. E. Rep. 3; Born v. Schrenkeisen, 110 N. Y. 59,17 N. E. Rep. 339; Savings Inst. v. Burdick, 87 N. Y. 40; Paine v.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Albany City Savings Institution v. . BurdickNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Born v. . SchrenkeisenNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Mayer v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Kilmer v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Oberlander v. . SpiessNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Curtis v. GilesThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1894
- De Cernea v. CornellNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Page v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1894