W. v. Suda

Decision Date23 March 1897
Citation36 A. 1015,69 Conn. 60
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesWEST et al. v. SUDA.

Appeal from city court of Hartford; McManus, Judge.

Action by West & Simms against Frank Suda for reformation of contract and damages by way of equitable relief for breach of the contract as reformed. Judgment for plaintiffs on facts found by the court, and defendant appeals. No error.

The plaintiffs are builders, and contracted with defendant to do the carpenter and mason work on a house to be erected for the defendant on his land. The complaint sets out in detail the contract; the facts showing a mutual mistake in support of the claim to reform the contract; the facts showing a breach of the contract as reformed, and the extent of the injury so caused; and asks by way of equitable relief for a reformation of the contract, and damages. To this complaint the defendant demurred, and afterwards answered. Upon trial the court found the issues for the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment that the contract be reformed as asked, and for damages. It appeal's in the finding: That the defendant had procured plans and specifications to be drawn for building his house, and the same were submitted to plaintiffs, who offered to build such a house for a specified sum. This offer was not accepted, and the defendant then asked the plaintiffs to make another estimate, excluding therefrom certain items specified in a memorandum prepared by the defendant, and that the plaintiffs made such estimate, which was accepted by the defendant, and a contract between them executed in pursuance thereof. That when the parties met to execute the contract, Mr. West, one of the plaintiffs, read from the defendant's memorandum the list of items agreed by both parties to be excluded, and Frank Suda, a son of the defendant, undertook to erase from the plans and specifications such items as they were read; and all parties believed that the same were all so erased, but by inadvertence Suda, Jr., did not erase some of the items read. That the contract, plans, and specifications were then signed, both the plaintiffs and the defendant believing that all said items contained in said memorandum and read to Suda, Jr., had been stricken out, and acting under this mutual mistake. That the plaintiffs had previously read and examined the plans and specifications, but did not re-read them after Suda, Jr., had made the erasures as aforesaid, and before execution, and, although they omitted to do so, were not, in fact, guilty of negligence. That the memorandum headed, "Things to be left out," was taken away by the defendant or his son. That the defendant, without any ground under the contract as reformed, but claiming that the plaintiffs had not complied with the plans and specifications, ejected the plaintiffs and their workmen from the premises, took possession of the building, together with materials furnished by the plaintiffs, and has ever since held possession of the same. That the damage to the plaintiffs amounted to $1,664.03.

The contract contained a provision that the work should be done by the plaintiffs to the satisfaction of the architect named in the contract. The judgment of the city court as printed in the record, owing to a clerical mistake, did not conform to the judgment actually rendered. This error was rectified before the case was submitted on argument. The errors in law raised upon the trial, specified in appeal, and claimed upon argument, are: The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • T. Arnold Ward v. Ray C. Lyman
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1937
    ... ... 147, 151, 106 ... A. 676. The mistake of a scrivener acting for all parties is ... a mutual mistake. See Dietrich v ... Hutchinson, 73 Vt. 134, 141, 50 A. 810, 87 Am. St ... Rep. 698; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 77 Vt. 244, 247, 59 ... A. 845; McKenzie v. McKenzie, 52 Vt. 271, ... 276, 277; West v. Suda, 69 Conn. 60, 36 A ... 1015, 1016; Parchen v. Chessman, 49 Mont ... 326, 142 P. 631, 635, 146 P. 469, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 68 ...           The ... defendant argues that because the plaintiffs signed the ... written contract without having read all of its terms, they ... were ... ...
  • Ward v. Lyman
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1937
    ...141, 50 A. 810, 87 Am.St.Rep. 698; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 77 Vt. 244, 247, 59 A. 845; McKenzie v. McKenzie, 52 Vt. 271, 276, 277; West v. Suda, 69 Conn. 60, 36 A. 1015, 1016; Parchen v. Chessman, 49 Mont. 326, 142 P. 631, 635, 146 P. 469, Ann.Cas.1916A, The defendant argues that, because the plainti......
  • Randolph Const. Co. v. Kings East Corp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1973
    ...See Anderson v. Yaworski, 120 Conn. 390, 399, 181 A. 205; Chinigo v. Ehrenberg, 112 Conn. 381, 384, 152 A. 305; West v. Suda, 69 Conn. 60, 63, 36 A. 1015. The factual issue includes in this case the total undertaking covered by the writing, the amount of work affected by the alterations and......
  • Dinnie v. Lakota Hotel Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1921
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT