Cary & Co. v. F. E. Satterlee & Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 25005.,25005. |
| Citation | 166 Minn. 507,208 N.W. 408 |
| Parties | CARY & CO. v. F. E. SATTERLEE & CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; F. E. Reed, Judge.
Suit by the Cary & Co., against the F. E. Satterlee & Co., to reform a conditional sales contract and for an injunction. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Order affirmed.Harry Hamilton Nelson, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
James E. Carr, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Defendant in this suit, brought an action in replevin in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis to recover certain machinery which it had sold to plaintiff under a conditional sale contract. Thereupon plaintiff brought this action in the district court to reform the conditional sale contract and enjoin defendant from prosecuting the action in replevin, and obtained a temporary restraining order. The court found that plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action, and denied any relief. Plaintiff appealed.
The complaint alleges the bringing of the action in replevin, and contains further allegations to the effect that, when the machinery was purchased, defendant promised and agreed to take back any machine which plaintiff should wish to return and to give plaintiff credit for the purchase price thereof, and also promised and agreed to make good any parts found to be defective or missing, and that these agreements were not included in the written contract, for the reason that defendant intended to use the contract as collateral security for loans at the bank, and it would not be acceptable to the bank if it contained such provisions. The complaint contains further allegations to the effect that defendant had refused to accept a machine which plaintiff sought to return, and had failed to replace certain defective or missing parts.
Plaintiff asked the court to reform the contract by inserting the alleged oral agreements therein. Courts cannot make contracts for the parties, and cannot reform or change the writing evidencing a contract by including therein provisions which the parties did not intend to include therein. Here both the complaint and the evidence presented by plaintiff itself show conclusively that the parties did not intend to include these alleged oral agreements in the written contract, and the court cannot insert them and thereby make a different contract from that agreed upon by the parties. As neither the complaint nor the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Austin
... ... v. Shonert & Sons, 95 N. Y. Eq. 12, 122 A ... 307; Black & White Operating Co. v. Grosbart, 107 N ... J. L. 163, 151 A. 630; Cary & Co. v. Satterlee & Co., 166 Minn. 507, 208 N.W. 408; In re Co-operative ... Law Co., 198 N.Y. 479, 92 N.E. 15, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 55; ... ...
-
State ex. Inf. Miller v. St. L. Union Trust Co.
... ... [N.J. Photo Engr. Co. v. Carl Schonert & Sons, 95 N.J. Eq. 12, 122 Atl. 307; Black & White Operating Co. v. Grosbart, 151 Atl. 630; Cary & Co. v. Satterlee & Co., 166 Minn. 507, 208 N.W. 408.] The phrase "terms of the trust" means the manifestation of intention of the settlor of the ... ...
-
Land Management, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection
... ... 467, 101 S.W.2d 977, 982-83 (1937); United Securities Corp. v. Pantex Pressing Mach., Inc., 98 Colo. 79, 53 P.2d 653, 656 (1935); Cary & Co. v. F. E. Satterlee & Co., 166 Minn. 507, 208 N.W. 408, 409 (1926); Culpeper Nat. Bank, Inc. v. Tidewater Inprovement Co., 119 Va. 73, 89 S.E ... ...
-
Shortz v. Farrell
... ... 63, 151 A. 630; ... Nixon, Ellison & Co. v. Southwestern Insurance Co., ... 47 Ill. 444; Nispel v. Western Union R.R. Co., 64 ... Ill. 311; Cary v. Satterlee, 166 Minn. 507, 208 N.W ... 408. [15] Were it otherwise, a corporation ... could employ any person, not learned in the law, to ... ...