Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co.

132 A.D. 553, 116 N.Y.S. 975, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1542
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 132 A.D. 553 (Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co., 132 A.D. 553, 116 N.Y.S. 975, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Chester, J.:

The parties do .not disagree materially ¡as to the law applicable to this case, and that is, that in order to entitle the plaintiff to have the release rescinded in equity he -must show that it was executed as the result of a mutual mistake as to an existing fact. The defendant insists that the mistake was not one of fact, but of belief or opinion. This question must he judged solely by the -allegations of the complaint. These to my mind are ample to show that the release was signed and delivered as the result of a mutual mistake as to an existing fact. It is asserted in the complaint that-at the'time the release was executed ¡and delivered conditions existed in plaintiff’s arm which had -not then been discovered which would eventually necessitate its amputation ; that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant then knew that those conditions existed, as was the fatit, and that, the settlement was made and the release signed in good faith under -the common but mistaken .belief that plaintiff would ¡not lose his arm and upon a mutual mistake as to the conditions actually ■then -existing in the arm that would eventually result in its loss.

These are not in any sense allegations of opinions or beliefs, but of facts, and are -sufficient, in our opinion, if proven, in connection with the.other facts alleged, to establish a cause of action to rescind the release as founded upon a mutual mistake of fact.

The interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to- defendant to withdraw -demurrer -and - answer .on payment of -costs in this court and at the Special Term.

All concurred.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer on payment of "costs in this court and at Special Term.

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

Related

Turner v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n
5 Misc. 2d 524 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Brown v. Manshul Realty Corp.
271 A.D.2d 222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
153 F.2d 757 (Second Circuit, 1946)
Vondera v. Chapman
180 S.W.2d 704 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1944)
Mack v. Albee Press, Inc.
263 A.D. 275 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Woodworth v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
171 Misc. 585 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)
Gilbert v. Rothschild
254 A.D. 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
Thorne v. Columbia Cab Corp.
167 Misc. 72 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1938)
Seidman v. New York Life Insurance
162 Misc. 560 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Landau v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, Inc.
237 A.D. 141 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Peterson
271 P. 406 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1928)
Granger v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
215 N.W. 576 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1927)
Simpson v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.
186 N.W. 1001 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1922)
Nygard v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
179 N.W. 642 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920)
Weathers v. Kansas City Bridge Co.
162 P. 957 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D. 553, 116 N.Y.S. 975, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominicis-v-united-states-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1909.