clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 470   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

470 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
RICHARD W. GILL AND HENRIETTA
M. HALL,
ADMR'S OF SOMERVILLE PINKNEY, SEFTEMBER TERM, 1847.
vs.
WILLIAM D. CLAGETT.
[MISTAKE.]
IF parties come to a settlement upon terms mutually agreed upon, and error
or mistake occur in the settlement, a court of equity will rectify it and make
it conform to the intention of the parties.
Equity will, upon sufficient parol proof, reform a contract or settlement in wri-
ting upon the ground of mistake, and then enforce its executions as thus re-
formed, though the answer denies the mistake. But strong proof must be
adduced to overrule the answer denying the mistake.
[The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the following
opinion of the Chancellor, delivered on the 5th of November,
1847, and in 2 Md. Oh. Decisions, 151, and ante, 153, where
other opinions in the same case are reported.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
This case is submitted to the court upon written arguments
by the solicitors of the parties.
It is conceded, indeed it could not be denied, that courts of
equity have jurisdiction in cases of mistake, and it is equally
well settled, that if parties come to a settlement upon terms
mutually agreed upon, and error or mistake occur in the settle-
ment, a court of equity will entertain a bill to rectify the set-
tlement and make it conform to the intention of the parties.
It was at one time much doubted whether it was competent
for a plaintiff who sought the specific performance of an agree-
ment in writing to vary it by parol proof upon the ground of
mistake, and. then after having it thus corrected to insist upon its
execution, and this right of a plaintiff was especially questioned
when the answer of the defendant denied the mistake. These
doubts, however, have been removed by the decision of Chan-
cellor Kent, in the case of Gillespie vs. Moon, 2 Johns. Oh.
Rep., 585, and by the Court of Appeals, in the case of Moale

 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 470   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives