Legal Opinion

Kratz v. Padfield

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 10, 1922No. 23,771PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 2; Thornton W. Sargent, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

*397The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one to recover money according to the provisions of a written contract. The defendant prayed for reformation of the instrument on the ground it did not express the agreement of the parties. The court denied reformation, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

In deciding the matter of reformation, the court said:.

“Contracts are reduced to writing to avoid just such a muddle as we have gotten into. Mr. Padfield signed this contract after reading it, and he is held to have understood it and known all that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bodwell v. M. Heaton & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1888
  2. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. GriffithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
  3. Schaffer v. MillsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1934
  2. Waddle v. BirdSupreme Court of Kansas · 1927
  3. Algeo v. Employers Indemnity Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1925
  4. Jones v. CrowellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1948
  5. Kansas Amusement Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API