Wooden v. Haviland
Supreme Court of Connecticut
The first of these was a bill in chancery, seeking the reformation of a mortgage deed and a foreclosure of mortgaged premises. The other was a cross-bill, setting forth a mistake or misapprehension on the part of the plaintiff therein, relative to the mortgage contract, and praying for equitable relief.
Read the full summary
The first of these was a bill in chancery, seeking the reformation of a mortgage deed and a foreclosure of mortgaged premises. The other was a cross-bill, setting forth a mistake or misapprehension on the part of the plaintiff therein, relative to the mortgage contract, and praying for equitable relief. On the 27th of April 1842, Mary J. Haviland, the defendant in the original bill, made and gave to the plaintiffs severally four promissory notes, for certain sums therein expressed, amounting to 1200 dollars, payable two years after date, with interest; and to secure the payment of such sums…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The first question is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to have the mistake in the mortgage deed given to them by the defendant, corrected. It is alleged by them, and found by the court, that by mere mistake of the person who drew the deed, the provision that it should be void upon the payment of the notes according to their tenor, was omitted, contrary to the meaning and intention of the parties. That such a mistake may be corrected, by a court of chancery, has been too often decided, to be now questioned. Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10 Conn. R. 25. Carter v. Champion, 8 Conn. R. 259. Watson…
2Cited by7 opinions
- West v. SudaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- DeWolf v. A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
- Major v. FicklinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1889
- H. Hackfeld & Co. v. MonsarratHawaii Supreme Court · 1907
- Hitchins v. PettingillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.