| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 471 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
GILL VS. CLAGETT. 471 vs. Buchanan, 11 Gill & Johns., 314, and it must now be re- garded as established that a court of equity will, upon sufficient proof, grant relief to a plaintiff by reforming a contract or set- tlement in writing upon the ground of mistake, and then en- force its execution as thus reformed, though it is undeniably true that strong proof must be adduced to overrule the answer denying the mistake. It appears in this case, that a bill was filed as early as No- vember, 1832, by the complainant, Henrietta Hall, and her then husband against the defendant, Clagett and Charles Hill, which upon appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decree of the Chancellor in favor of the complainants, was remanded to to the Court of Chancery, under the act of 1832, ch. 302, for further proceedings. That the defendant, Hill, being by the opinion of the Court of Appeals exonerated from responsibility, and the husband of the complainant having died, terms of com- promise were proposed and agreed upon between the parties to this suit, and that on the 27th of February, 1842, a meeting took place for the purpose of arranging the details thereof, and com- ing to a settlement. At this meeting a statement was prepared according to which there appeared to be due from the defend- ant to the complainant. Hall, the sum of $674 86, for which amount, the said defendant gave to Somerville Pinkney, Esq., acting as the solicitor and agent of the complainant, his note, payable six months after date, with interest from date, and at the same time, defendant signed a paper by which it was agreed that any error which might have occurred in the settlement should be corrected, provided such error should be ascertained before the maturity of the note. Allowing the days of grace, this note became due on the 30th of August, 1842, four days before which, to wit, on the 26th of the same month, the pre- sent bill was filed, alleging very material errors in the settle- ment, and praying that it be reformed and executed according to the terms of the compromise and intentions of the parties. The terms of the compromise, as stated in the bill, are denied by the answer, which alleges an agreement to adjust the con- troversy between the parties upon different principles. The |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 471 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives