Brown v. Briggs
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
It is a presumption that a written contract truly sets forth the intention and understanding of the parties thereto. Therefore, the burden of proving the original contract, and the existence of the alleged mutual mistake, is on the one who seeks to have the writing reformed: L. B. Menefee Lbr. Co. v. Gamble, 119 Or. 224 (242 P. 628). This court has over and over again announced the rule that a court of equity should never decree reformation of a written contract by omitting certain material words and inserting others in their stead, except upon proofs that are clear, full, cogent and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Lewis v. LewisOregon Supreme Court · 1874
- Hyland v. HylandOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Dolph v. Lennon's, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
- Welch v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Evarts v. StegerOregon Supreme Court · 1874
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Supove v. Densmoor Et UxOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- De Tweede Northwestern & Pacific Hypotheekbank v. W. M. Barnett EstateOregon Supreme Court · 1938
- Eley v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1941
- Cohn v. DuntleyOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Roesch v. Equitable Savings & Loan Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1945
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.