Merchant v. Pielke
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Richland County; Pollock, J. Action by Moses Merchant against Michael Pielke. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. To justify a court in exorcising its power to revise a contract fraud or mistake must be clearly proven. A mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice. What the parties have solemnly reduced to writing cannot be varied or overthrown by oral proof unless the clearest evidence of mistake or fraud is produced.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Richland County; Pollock, J. Action by Moses Merchant against Michael Pielke. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. To justify a court in exorcising its power to revise a contract fraud or mistake must be clearly proven. A mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice. What the parties have solemnly reduced to writing cannot be varied or overthrown by oral proof unless the clearest evidence of mistake or fraud is produced. Clute v. Frazier, 12 N. W. Rep. 327; Newton v. Holley, 6 Wis. 592. The same rule applies here as was announced in Jasper v. Hazen, 4…
1Opinion of the CourtBartholomew, C. J.
This is an action in equity for the reformation of a contract. The plaintiff was successful in the District Court, and defendant brings the entire case to this -court for a retrial. The issues are exclusively issues of fact, and will be treated as briefly as may be consistent with an understanding of the case. Any extended discussion of the testimony would prove unprofitable.
The defendant is the owner of a tract of land in Richland county consisting of nearly 400 acres. Of this amount, about 300 acres, roughly speaking,-are cultivated and meadow lands. The remainder is pasture and timber…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Angell v. EggerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Merchant v. PielkeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Wilson v. PolsfutNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
- Merchant v. PielkeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900