Cassidy v. Metcalf
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. 1. When by mistake, the written agreement contains less than the parties intended, or contains more; or where it simply varies from their intent, by expressing something different in substance from the truth of the intent — in all such cases, if the mistake is clearly made out by proofs entirely satisfactory, equity will reform the contract, so as to make it conformable to the precise intent of the parties. 1 Story Eq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. 1. When by mistake, the written agreement contains less than the parties intended, or contains more; or where it simply varies from their intent, by expressing something different in substance from the truth of the intent — in all such cases, if the mistake is clearly made out by proofs entirely satisfactory, equity will reform the contract, so as to make it conformable to the precise intent of the parties. 1 Story Eq. Jur., § 152. It is the province of a court to enforce the contracts and conveyances of the parties, and not to make or alter them; but…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
— This is a bill in equity to reform a written contract, which was alleged by mistake not to have corresponded with the previous paroleagreement of the parties, and to enjoin proceedings on a suit at law on said written instrument.
The plaintiff’s petition, after reciti'ñg the fact that he had been a partner in the firm of Irons, Cassidy & Co., in which his brother, J. C. Cassidy and Irqns, and one Berry and himself were equally interested, stated that he sold out, or intended to sell out, his place in said firm to the *524defendants for $5,000, but tliat the contract which was executed to carry…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hunt v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Leitensdorfer v. DelphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sills v. . FordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Williamson v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. SchwabeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
- Corrigan v. TiernaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- King v. Hobbs.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.