Panhandle Lumber Co. v. Rancour

• Decision Date: 20 September 1913
• Citation: 135 P. 558,24 Idaho 603
• Parties: PANHANDLE LUMBER CO., Respondent, v. GEORGE RANCOUR, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

135 P. 558

24 Idaho 603

PANHANDLE LUMBER CO., Respondent, v. GEORGE RANCOUR, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

September 20, 1913

REFORMATION OF CONTRACT-WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE-REASONABLE DOUBT RULE-MISTAKE RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE.

1. It is an established rule in this state that a party seeking reformation of a contract or specific performance or pursuing any other civil remedy is not required to establish his case "beyond a reasonable doubt," and that the rule requiring a case to be established "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies in this state only to criminal cases.

2. The rule requiring a plaintiff seeking reformation of a contract or a specific performance to establish his case by clear and satisfactory evidence is a rule by which the trial court is to weigh and consider the evidence, and unless that rule has been substantially departed from by the trial court in arriving at his decision, the appellate court will not disturb the findings and judgment.

3. The rule that "courts of equity will not relieve parties from the consequences of their own folly or assist them when their condition is attributable to their failure to exercise ordinary care for their protection," will be administered by courts in the light of the facts and circumstances of each particular case with such discretion and flexibility as will accomplish substantial justice in the case then before the court.

4. Facts of this case examined and held sufficient to support the findings and judgment.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District for Kootenai County. Hon. Robert N. Dunn, Judge.

Action for reformation of contract and injunction. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Reed &amp Boughton, for Appellant.

The court erred in overruling defendant's motion to strike the amended complaint of plaintiff. (31 Cyc. 409; Anderson v. Groesbeck, 26 Colo. 3, 55 P. 1086; Hallett v. Larcom, 5 Idaho 492, 51 P. 108; Thompson v. Beeler, 69 Kan. 462, 77 P. 100; McLain & Daniel v. Americus Oil Co., 117 Ga. 881, 45 S.E. 268; Venable v. Burton, 118 Ga. 156, 45 S.E 29; Atwater v. Hannah, 116 Ga. 745, 42 S.E. 1007.)

Plaintiff did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt by clear satisfactory and convincing evidence that there was a mutual mistake in reducing the contract to writing. (2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 862; Houser v. Austin, 2 Idaho 204, 10 P. 37; Hearne v. Marine Ins. Co., 20 Wall. 488, 22 L.Ed. 395; Miller v. Morris, 123 Ala. 164, 27 So. 401; Hochstein v. Berghauser, 123 Cal. 681, 56 P. 547; Wilson v. Morris, 4 Colo. App. 242, 36 P. 248; Bishop v. Clay F. & M. Ins. Co., 49 Conn. 167; Muller v. Rhuman, 62 Ga. 332; Smith v. Rust, 112 Ill.App. 84; Fosler v. Miller, 132 Ill.App. 464; Hervey v. Savery, 48 Iowa 313; Pyne v. Knight, 130 Iowa 113, 106 N.W. 505; Philpott v. Elliott, 4 Md. (Ch.) 273; Miller v. Stuart, 107 Md. 23, 68 A. 273; German-Am. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 131 Mass. 316; Case v. Peters, 20 Mich. 298; Mosby v. Wall, 23 Miss. 81, 55 Am. Dec. 71; Downing v. McHugh, 3 Mo.App. 594; Rowley v. Flannelly, 30 N.J. Eq. 614; Hupsch v. Resch, 45 N.J. Eq. 657, 18 A. 372; Boyertown Nat. Bank v. Hartman, 147 Pa. 558, 30 Am. St. Rep. 759, 23 A. 842.)

"It must be satisfactorily proven, to a moral certainty." (Spare v. Insurance Co., 19 F. 14, 9 Saw. 148.)

"The proof must be so full and clear as to leave no room for controversy." (Henderson v. Stokes, 42 N.J. Eq. 586, 8 A. 718.)

"So clear and convincing as to leave no room for doubt." (Cox v. Woods, 67 Cal. 317, 7 P. 722.)

"It must be entirely clear and satisfactory." (Rawson v. Lyon, 23 F. 107.)

"Clear case, free from doubt." (Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 102 Mass. 48.)

"Clear, satisfactory and convincing." (Greive v. Greive, 15 Wyo. 358, 89 P. 569, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 1211, 11 Ann. Cas. 1162; Weltner v. Thurmond, 17 Wyo. 268, 129 Am. St. 1113, 98 P. 590, 99 P. 1128.)

"Where the evidence as to an alleged mistake hangs equal or nearly in equilibrio, as where one party to an instrument testifies that a mutual mistake was made, which the other party thereto denies, reformation will be refused." (United States v. Munroe, F. Cas. No. 15,835, 5 Mason, 572; Pope v. Hoopes, 84 F. 927, 90 F. 451, 33 C. C. A. 595; White v. Henderson-Boyd Lbr. Co., 165 Ala. 218, 51 So. 764; Marquette Lbr. Co. v. Abbeles Co., 81 Ark. 420, 99 S.W. 685; Wall v. Arrangton, 13 Ga. 88; Mifflin County Nat. Bank v. Thompson, 144 Pa. 393, 22 A. 714; Helms v. Helms, 135 N.C. 164, 47 S.E. 415.)

It is a well-settled rule that a court of equity will not grant or confer any relief on the ground of mistake where the mistake is due to the parties' own carelessness or negligence, nor will it relieve the party from the consequences of their own folly or assist them when their condition is attributable to their failure to exercise ordinary care for their own protection. (Persinger v. Chapman, 93 Va. 349, 25 S.E. 5; Johnston v. Dunavan, 17 Ill.App. 59; Marshall v. Westrope, 98 Iowa 324, 67 N.W. 257; Hawkins v. Hawkins, 50 Cal. 558; Kimmell v. Skelly, 130 Cal. 555, 62 P. 1067; Robertson v. Smith, 11 Tex. 211, 60 Am. Dec. 234; Hill v. Bush, 19 Ark. 522; Robinson v. Glass, 94 Ind. 211; Glenn v. Statler, 42 Iowa 107; Farnsworth v. Duffner, 142 U.S. 43, 12 S.Ct. 164, 35 L.Ed. 931; Roemer v. Conlon, 45 N.J. Eq. 234, 19 A. 664; Great West Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 176 F. 325, 99 C. C. A. 615; Perkins v. Herring, 110 Va. 822, 67 S.E. 515, 19 Ann. Cas. 342; 19 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 342; Voorhis v. Murphy, 26 N.J. Eq. 434.)

It is not sufficient to show a misdescription of land in the contract, occurring through the party's own negligence and mistake. (Emery v. Mohler, 69 Ill. 221; First Nat. Bank v. Gough, 61 Ind. 147; Toops v. Snyder, 70 Ind. 554; Fitzpatrick v. Ringo, 9 Ky. 503, 5 S.W. 431; Albany City Sav. Inst. v. Burdick, 20 Hun, 104; Rushton v. Hallett, 8 Utah 277, 30 P. 1014; Kennerty v. Etiwan Phosphate Co., 21 S.C. 226, 53 Am. Rep. 669; Cape Fear Lumber Co. v. Matheson, 69 S.C. 87, 48 S.E. 111; Haggerty v. McCanna, 25 N.J. Eq. 48; McNinch v. N.W. Thresher Co., 23 Okla. 886, 138 Am. St. 803, 100 P. 524.)

Chas. L. Heitman, for Respondent.

In such proceedings all amendments, if no statute or rule of court interposes to prevent, are in the discretion of the court, and are allowed or refused as the court may deem most conducive to the furtherance of justice. (1 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 515, 533; Lanning v. Heath, 25 N.J. Eq. 425; Bradley v. Parker, 4 Cal. Unrep. 250, 34 P. 234.)

Amendment introducing a new cause of action or defense may be allowed at any time before trial. (Hatch v. Bank, 78 N.Y. 487; Davis v. New York etc. R. Co., 110 N.Y. 646, 17 N.E. 733.)

When an offer to amend is made at such a stage in the proceedings that the other party will not lose an opportunity to fairly present his whole case, amendments should be allowed with great liberality. (Kirstein v. Madden, 38 Cal. 158; Palmer v. Utah Ry., 2 Idaho 384 (350), 16 P. 553; Homan v. Hellman, 35 Neb. 414, 35 N.W. 369; Robinson v. Willoughby, 67 N.C. 84.)

The right of the court sitting in equity to give the relief prayed for by plaintiff cannot be questioned. Contracts of every description, whether relating to real or personal property, or whether executed or executory, will be reformed or corrected by the chancellor upon proper proof. This jurisdiction is given in order that exact justice may be done and to defeat mistake or fraud. (Williams v. Hamilton, 104 Iowa 423, 65 Am. St. 475 and note, 73 N.W. 1029.)

The fact that the evidence is conflicting upon the point of the mistake claimed is no argument against the right of the plaintiff to have the relief prayed for. (Hutchinson v. Ainsworth, 73 Cal. 457, 15 P. 82; Wilson v. Moriarity, 88 Cal. 211, 26 P. 85.)

The decision of the trial court upon such conflict of evidence will be conclusive. (Brison v. Brison, 90 Cal. 323, 27 P. 186; Home Farm Co. v. Freitas, 153 Cal. 680, 96 P. 308; Owsley v. Matson, 156 Cal. 401, 104 P. 983.)

Courts of equity are more lenient in reforming and correcting instruments where the mistake sought to be corrected is descriptions of property than where the mistake is in terms or conditions of agreement. (Rosenbaum v. Evans, 63 Wash. 506, 115 P. 1054; Kern River Co. v. Los Angeles, 164 Cal. 751, 130 P. 714; Deford v. Mercer, 24 Iowa 118, 92 Am. Dec. 460; James v. Cutler, 54 Wis. 172, 10 N.W. 147; Sullivan v. Moorehead, 99 Cal. 157, 33 P. 796.)

The rule that equity will not aid the negligent does not apply in its fullest sense to the correction of mistakes merely in the description of property granted. (Morrison v. Collier, 79 Ind. 417.)

Relief is not denied because there is conflicting testimony, for that would result in a denial of justice in some of the plainest cases. (Beach, Eq. Jur., sec. 546.)

Equity will reform an instrument where an unreasonable excess of land or property was by mistake incorporated in the conveyance. (Clark v. Roots, 50 Ark. 179, 6 S.W. 728, 8 S.W. 569; Wilcox v. Lucas, 121 Mass. 21, 3 Morr. Min. Rep. 380; Stedwell v. Anderson, 21 Conn. 139; Hosleton v. Dickinson, 51 Iowa 244, 1 N.W. 550.)

In an action to reform a written contract on the ground that, owing to a mistake, it fails to express the agreement which the parties to it actually made, it is incumbent upon the party alleging the mistake to clearly establish it by satisfactory proofs, but he is not bound to establish the mistake beyond a reasonable doubt. (Southard v. Curley, 134 N.Y. 148, 30 Am. St. 642, 31 N.E. 330, 16 L. R. A. 561; Hosleton v. Dickinson, 51 Iowa 244, 1 N.W. 550.)

AILSHIE, C. J. Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, C. J.

This action was commenced by the plaintiff asking for an injunction to restrain the defendant from...