Martinsburg Bank v. Central Pa. Telephone & Supply Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 142, July T., 1891, from decree of C. P. Blair Co., No. 169, in equity, continuing injunction to restrain removal of telephone instrument. The facts found- by the master, Aug.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 142, July T., 1891, from decree of C. P. Blair Co., No. 169, in equity, continuing injunction to restrain removal of telephone instrument. The facts found- by the master, Aug. S. Landis, Esq., were, inter alia, as follows : Plaintiff, in 1888, desiring telephone service at Martinsburg, was called upon by defendant’s superintendent W. L. Malin, who proposed to furnish telephone connection with the Hollidaysburg exchange, provided defendant would procure three other subscribers in Martinsburg. ' The terms for the first two years were for defendant $100 a year, and for the three…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
It is with some difficulty that we sustain the finding of parol stipulations of the contract not included in the writing. The latter is clear and explicit, and the evidence to vary it is entirely lacking in the element of any misleading representation at the time of signing, or of any fraud or accident. The only ground of equitable reformation is the mistake of the bank president as to the agreement of the writing with the previous negotiations. As to this the learned master finds that the president “ when he signed the agreement supposed it was in accordance…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SandersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Mercur v. Media Electric Light, Heat & Power Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910