Tri-State Construction Co. v. Watts
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland 'Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor; Equity will reform a written instrument where there is a mutual mistake and where there has been a mistake by one party, accompanied, by fraud or inequitable conduct of the other. Pomeroy’s Equity, sec. 1376. The court will not decree an alteration in the terms of a written contract unless the proof is full, clear, unequivocal and decisive. 71 Ark. 614; 85 Ark. 62; 75 Ark. 72; 81 Ark. 420; 81 Ark. 166.
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
The appellant is a corporation organized under the laws of Tennessee. The appellee is a colored man who resided in Mississippi. On the 3rd of May, 1919, they entered into a contract which provides in part •as follows:
“That the said corporation in consideration of the sum of five thousand dollars cash in hand paid, and of the sum of twenty-one thousand dollars to be paid as herein provided, and the other stipulations and agreements herein contained, doth agree to construct upon a certain lot or parcel of ground in the city of ITot Springs, Arkansas, a tliree-story brick building with 13-ineh…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Welch v. WelchSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Mitchell Manufacturing Co. v. KempnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Connecticut Fire Insurance v. WiggintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Broderick v. McRae Box Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Tillar v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hart v. WimberlySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Sutton v. FordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
- Arkansas Bank & Trust Co. v. State Bank of Poplar BluffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924