School Dist. No. 4 v. Hartong
Oregon Supreme Court
From Lane: George F. Skipworth, Judge. Department 2. January 15, 1914, plaintiff entered into a written contract with Fred Glenn & Company whereby the company agreed to supply the plaintiff with such papers and proceedings as might be necessary to legally authorize the issuance of $100,000 of its bonds to be used in the construction of a school building for which the plaintiff, upon demand, agreed to pay the company one half of one per cent of the par value of the bonds…
Read the full summary
From Lane: George F. Skipworth, Judge. Department 2. January 15, 1914, plaintiff entered into a written contract with Fred Glenn & Company whereby the company agreed to supply the plaintiff with such papers and proceedings as might be necessary to legally authorize the issuance of $100,000 of its bonds to be used in the construction of a school building for which the plaintiff, upon demand, agreed to pay the company one half of one per cent of the par value of the bonds issued under such an agreement. It is alleged that by mutual mistake and' oversight of the parties and without the fault of…
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNS, J. —
1. The law is fundamental and is so decided by this court in the case of Stephens v. Murton, 6 Or. 193 that:
“In order to warrant a court of equity in reforming an instrument on the ground of mutual mistake, the proof of the mistake and that it was mutual must be very clear.”
This principle has been followed by numerous decisions of this court, including the case of Hughey v. Smith, 65 Or. 323 (133 Pac. 68), in which they are all collated and approved. Before the written contract can be reformed it must be made to appear that there was a mistake and that the mistake was mutual and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stephens v. MurtonOregon Supreme Court · 1876
- Hughey v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1913
3Cited by2 opinions
- Miller v. FisherOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Bennett v. Farmers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997