B. Gortz Manufacturing Co. v. Parks

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

B. Gortz Manufacturing Co. v. Parks

84 N.Y.S. 1118

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 1118 (B. Gortz Manufacturing Co. v. Parks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B. Gortz Manufacturing Co. v. Parks, 84 N.Y.S. 1118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BLANCHARD, J.

It is clear, from the evidence, that the parties to the written agreement upon which this action was brought intended that that instrument should relate to the prior contract made by the plaintiff with Teichman & Potter, and that the insertion of the word “Company” in the agreement was due to clerical error or mistake. On this point nothing [1119]*1119need be added to the opinion of the court at the trial. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLANCHARD, J.

It is clear, from the evidence, that the parties to the written agreement upon which this action was brought intended that that instrument should relate to the prior contract made by the plaintiff with Teichman & Potter, and that the insertion of the word “Company” in the agreement was due to clerical error or mistake. On this point nothing [1119]*1119need be added to the opinion of the court at the trial. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 1118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-gortz-manufacturing-co-v-parks-nyappterm-1903.