Kunz v. Custer

Frankum, Judge.

The plaintiff insists that the defendant’s motion and objections to the amendment are without merit in that a mistake in a contract consisting of an unintentional act or an omission which is manifestly shown to be a mere clerical error, and which does not change the contract or the relation of the parties, may be corrected at law without the necessity to resort to equity to reform the contract, citing in support of this contention Thompson v. Hall & Long, 67 Ga. 627; Tillman v. Webb & Co., 17 Ga. App. 620 (87 S. E. 904); Gaulding v. Baker, 9 Ga. App. 578 (71 S. E. 1018). This…