Levin v. Bernstein
| Decision Date | 06 January 1930 |
| Citation | 169 N.E. 430,269 Mass. 542 |
| Parties | LEVIN v. BERNSTEIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Joseph E. Quinn, Judge.
Suit by Sarah Levin against Gdalia Bernstein. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Maurice Jacobs, of Boston, for appellant.
L. M. Friedman, of Boston, for appellee.
This is a bill in equity to reform a mortgage on the ground that there was mutual mistake, in that the language used does not express the intent of the parties, who executed it in ignorance of the error. The judge stated that he was not satisfied that the words affecting the meaning of the instrument which it was claimed were used contrary to the intention of the parties, were used either by inadvertence, clerical error or mistake, and found rather that they were inserted advisedly. He dismissed the bill. The plaintiff appealed.
The law is settled that equity will not reform a document on the ground of mutual mistake where it expresses, in language deliberately chosen, the meaning which one of the parties intended it to convey. Barrell v. Britton, 252 Mass. 504, 508, 148 N. E. 134. In such a case there is no mutual mistake. Page v. Higgins, 150 Mass. 27, 22 N. E. 63,5 L. R. A. 152;New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Plimpton, 238 Mass. 337, 340, 130 N. E. 498;O'Reilly's Case, 258 Mass. 205, 208, 154 N. E. 851. Whether in fact the language was so chosen and used is a question of fact.
This court will not overturn the decisions of a trial judge in matter of fact unless it is clearly wrong, or is the result of a mistake of law or an abuse of discretion. Thayer v. Atwood, 259 Mass. 523, 527, 156 N. E. 683. The evidence reported fails to show any mistake of fact or law or any indication of abuse. The finding would well be warranted that the seller of the land in question did not intend to give the buyer the right she now desires, and that if the latter failed to apprehend it at the time it was because she failed to take advantage of the ample opportunity given her by the other party to do so.
Decree affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shikes v. Gabelnick
...of the judge that the sellers did not rely on the false representations of the buyer. Sandler v. Silk (Mass.) 169 N. E. 431;Levin v. Bernstein (Mass.) 169 N. E. 430;R. E. McDonald & Co. v. Finkovitch (Mass.) 170 N. E. 112. The judge was right in ruling that the buyer's statements concerning......
-
Century Plastic Corp. v. Tupper Corp.
...fraud, accident, or mistake it could not be reformed or rescinded. O'Reilly's Case, 258 Mass. 205, 208, 154 N.E. 851; Levin v. Bernstein, 269 Mass. 542, 543, 169 N.E. 430; Perkin's Case, 278 Mass. 294, 301, 180 N.E. 142. The plaintiff does not seek relief on any ground other than mutual mis......
-
Eno v. Prime Mfg. Co.
... ... of mutual mistake where it expresses, in language ... deliberately chosen, the meaning which one of the parties ... intended it to convey." Levin v. Bernstein, 269 ... Mass. 542 , 543. "If one of the parties understood the ... agreement to be substantially as written, the other party ... ...
-
Shikes v. Gabelnick
... ... false representations of the buyer. Sandler v. Silk, ... 269 Mass. 562 , 566, 567. Levin v. Bernstein, 269 ... Mass. 542 , 543. R.E. McDonald Co. v. Finkovitch, ... 270 Mass. 362 , 366. The judge was right in ruling that the ... ...