German American Insurance Company v. Davis
| Decision Date | 30 June 1881 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | German American Insurance Company v. Person Davis & others |
Suffolk. Bill In equity, filed October 14, 1879, to reform certain indorsements made by the plaintiff upon two policies of insurance issued by it to Emma L. Putney. Hearing before Soule, J., who, at the request of the parties, reserved the case for the consideration of the full court. The facts appear in the opinion.
Bill dismissed.
J. H Benton, Jr., for the plaintiff.
C. A Welch & J. L. Thorndike, for the defendants.
To justify a court of chancery in correcting and reforming a written contract entered into deliberately, so as to make it conform to an alleged oral contract differing in terms, the proofs of mutual mistake must be full, clear and decisive. It must appear beyond reasonable doubt that the precise terms of a contract had been orally agreed upon between the parties, and that the written instrument afterwards signed fails to be, as it was intended, an execution of the previous agreement, but expresses a different contract; and that this is the result of a mutual mistake. Otherwise, if a contract should be reformed upon proof of the mistake of one of the parties as to its terms or legal effect, the injustice would be done of imposing upon the other party a contract to which he had never assented. Stock bridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co. 107 Mass. 290. Sawyer v. Hovey, 3 Allen 331. Canedy v. Marcy, 13 Gray 373.
In the case before us, it appears that the plaintiffs issued to one Putney two policies of insurance against fire upon her house in Cambridge, payable in case of loss to Davis, Taylor and Demmon to extent of their interest, each policy containing the provision that, if the property should be sold, or if any change should be made in the title or possession thereof, the policy should be void. After the policies were issued, Putney sold the house, thus avoiding them. Afterwards the defendants, who held a mortgage on the house, entered for the purpose of foreclosure. Being advised by counsel that they ought to notify the insurance company of this entry, Taylor one of the defendants, called at the office of its agent for that purpose, and the interview then had resulted in putting upon each policy the following indorsement: The plaintiff's agent did not know of the previous conveyance by Putney. Taylor knew of it, but did not then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panhandle Lumber Co. v. Rancour
... ... Stuart, 107 Md. 23, 68 A. 273; German-Am. Ins. Co ... v. Davis, 131 Mass. 316; Case v. Peters, ... (Spare v. Insurance Co., 19 F. 14, 9 Saw. 148.) ... "The ... proof ... ...
-
Mickelson v. Barnet
...Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290, 317 (1871). Kennedy v. Poole, 213 Mass. 495, 498, 100 N.E. 635 (1913). German American Ins. Co. v. Davis, 131 Mass. 316, 316 (1881). In the instant case the "proof" consists largely of the stipulations of the parties that the instrument does not r......
-
Kidder v. Greenman
...mistake the proof must be ‘full, clear, and decisive.’ Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290, 317;German American Ins. Co. v. Davis, 131 Mass. 316;Richardson v. Adams, 171 Mass. 447, 449, 50 N. E. 941;Coolidge v. Loring, 235 Mass. 220, 224, 126 N. E. 276;New York, New Haven......
-
Superintendent of Worcester State Hospital v. Hagberg
...to the "reasonable doubt" standard. Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290, 316-317 (1871); German Am. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 131 Mass. 316, 317 (1881). Indeed, the language of the cases cited suggests that proof must be even more rigorous than proof in the ordinary criminal cas......