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

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 6, 1903·Published

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.

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

Pincite

84 N.Y.S. 1118 (B. Gortz Manufacturing Co. v. Parks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.