Hughes v. Payne
| Decision Date | 01 March 1911 |
| Citation | 130 N.W. 81,27 S.D. 214 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. PAYNE. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walworth County; Lyman T. Bouchor, Judge.
Action by E. C. Hughes against W. H. Payne. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. H Perry and Charles M. Stevens, for appellant.
Taubman & Williamson, for respondent.
In this case plaintiff claimed that on the 5th day of April, 1906, he agreed to purchase and the defendant agreed to sell to him the S. E. 1/4 of section 30, township 124, range 79, in Walworth county, at the agreed price of $12 per acre; that $300 of the purchase price was paid down in cash, and it was further agreed that the balance of the purchase price was to be paid in about a week, when the deed to the land was to be delivered to plaintiff. The only writing that took place between these parties in such transaction was the following instrument: Plaintiff instituted this action to reform the above instrument so that it would include all the terms of the foregoing oral contract, claiming that plaintiff when he wrote said receipt had, by mistake, omitted the terms of the sale therefrom, and then asked for specific performance of said contract as so reformed. Defendant, among other defenses, made a general denial of all the allegations of the complaint. On the trial plaintiff testified Among others the court made the following findings "That the evidence in this case is insufficient to establish a prima facie case on behalf of plaintiff for the specific performance of the contract set out in the complaint; that there was no mistake of fact or of law or fraud connected with the transaction; that plaintiff carelessly neglected to have the contract between defendant and himself, or memorandum thereof, reduced to writing, with the exception of the receipt." Judgment on the findings was rendered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals, raising the correctness of these findings, contending, in effect, that these findings are against the law and the evidence. We are of the opinion that the findings and judgment are right.
It is not every mistake in connection with the drawing of a contract that may be reformed. It is elementary, in the absence of fraud, that the mistake which may be corrected by legal reformation must be mutual between the parties, and the reformation can only be made as to such matters as the parties, at the time of the execution of the instrument mutually intended to put into the writing, and by reason of mistake, accident, or oversight failed to insert therein. There is an entire absence of evidence in this case tending to show that W. H. Payne ever intended to sign any instrument other than the receipt in its condition as it actually was at the time he signed the same. There was no mistake on the part of Payne. Plaintiff's testimony is that the mistake was on his part. There is an entire lack of testimony tending to show that plaintiff himself, at the time he drew this receipt, intended to include therein any words or terms or conditions other than those actually appearing therein. The plaintiff himself does not testify that he intended to write or insert the full terms of the oral agreement into this receipt, and that it was by reason of accident or oversight on his part, such terms and conditions did not appear therein, but on the contrary, he testified that the mistake occurred on account of his inexperience in that line of business. There is no evidence in this case tending to show that either part...
To continue reading
Request your trial