Kent v. Manchester
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff sold to the defendants a farm, with the stock, utensils, &c., by a contract which embraced in its terms all the personal property on the farm and in the house, save a few articles specially excepted by name. The purchasers claimed the household furniture, and the vendor insisted that such was not the contract, hut that the furniture was intended to he excepted.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff sold to the defendants a farm, with the stock, utensils, &c., by a contract which embraced in its terms all the personal property on the farm and in the house, save a few articles specially excepted by name. The purchasers claimed the household furniture, and the vendor insisted that such was not the contract, hut that the furniture was intended to he excepted. This action was brought for the purpose of having the contract reformed, on the ground of mistake and inadvertence.
1Opinion of the CourtBacon, J.
The complaint in this case is filed to procure the reformation of a contract entered into between the parties concerning the sale of a farm and certain personal property by the plaintiff to the defendants. The allegation, in substance, is, that the proper clauses to carry out and express the true bargain and agreement between the parties were omitted through inadvertence and mistake on the part of the plaintiff, and through inadvertence and mistake or fraud on the part of the defendants. The allegation as to fraud may, however, be dismissed, inasmuch as there is no testimony whatever to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jarvis v. PalmerNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
3Cited by6 opinions
- Welch v. WorsleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1928
- Berringer v. SchaeferNew York Supreme Court · 1875
- Duncan v. BerlinThe Superior Court of New York City · 1868
- Curtis v. GilesThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1894
- Garnar v. BibdNew York Supreme Court · 1870
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.