Luning v. Brooks
NICHOLAS LUNING v. BENJAMIN S. BROOKS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author), Lawrence F. Terry
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
MURRAY, C. J.
— The plaintiff filed his bill in equity in the court below to reform a written contract, alleging mistake, etc.
The jurisdiction of courts of chancery in such cases is well established, and relief always granted where the mistake is established by clear and positive testimony. In cases of doubt, however, it is denied on the well-known policy of the law that parol evidence ought not to be admitted to alter or vary the terms of a written instrument, and that parties having reduced their contract to writing are supposed to have embraced their full intentions therein.
We have examined the testimony in this case, and are of opinion that it was not of that character to warrant a court of equity (in accordance with the rules governing such cases) to reform or alter the terms of a contract solemnly entered into in writing.
Judgment reversed.
I concur: Terry, J.
Cited by
- Speer v. Kittle Manufacturing Co. Docket No. 4296. · 1931-10-28