Gauss v. First Wayne National Bank

249 N.W. 835, 264 Mich. 233, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 983
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided August 29, 1933·No. Docket No. 47, Calendar No. 36,931.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Potter, J.

October 23, 1931, plaintiff filed a bill for specific performance of a written contract, a copy of which appears in the margin, * and for an *235 order directing defendant bank to convey and deliver to bim the bonds and notes which he designated. The bank filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill naming all of the persons who executed as purchasers the contract as defendants. The answer and cross-bill of the bank denied plaintiff’s right to select the bonds and notes designated by him, because such selection by plaintiff would affect the rights of the bank and other guarantors. By *236 way of cross-bill it asked tbe court apportion tbe bonds and notes among tbe parties to tbe agreement, *237 in accordance with the amount of their subscriptions ; that if the court did not apportion such bonds, then the bank be authorized to sell the same, the net proceeds to be paid to the bank, and if the amount realized was insufficient to pay it the balance due, $194,000, together with interest and expenses, the deficit be charged against the subscribers to said agreement who were made cross-defendants, in proportion to their subscriptions as appearing in the agreement; that the signers of the contract as purchasers be decreed to pay thq balance due and defendant have execution therefor. Mr. Van Paris, administrator of the estate of Axel E. Michelson, deceased, filed,a motion to dismiss the proceedings, because the contract was not capable of specific performance, but was void for uncertainty and incompleteness. This is conceded, but defendant bank argues that if the contract is incomplete it should be reformed so as to make it complete. But reformation of written contracts is based upon equitable principles, making the written contract conform to the real agreement between the parties; supplying provisions which should have been inserted, or omitting therefrom provisions which were inserted. The basis of reformation is fraud or mistake. The court may not supply material stipulations omitted from a contract in the absence of fraud or mistake. It cannot perfect contracts which the parties themselves have left imperfect. It cannot make contracts for the parties. It may only interpret contracts as made. No fraud or mistake is alleged or proven in relation to the contract in question. The court is without jurisdiction to reform the contract. Blanchard v. Railroad Co., 31 Mich. 43 (18 Am. Rep. 142); Leslie v. Smith, 32 Mich. 64; Nims v. Vaughn, 40 Mich. 356; Gates *238 v. Gamble, 53 Mich. 181; Thayer v. Augustine, 55 Mich. 187 (54 Am. Rep. 361); Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50 (4 Am. St. Rep. 814); Wheaton v. Cadillac Automobile Co., 143 Mich. 21; Holcomb v. Czenkusch, 222 Mich. 376; 13 C. J. p. 525. The trial court arrived at a correct conclusion.

Decree affirmed, with-costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred. Fead, J., did not sit.

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

Gauss v. First Wayne National Bank, 249 N.W. 835, 264 Mich. 233, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 983 (Mich. 1933).

249 N.W. 835 (Gauss v. First Wayne National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Giffels & Vallet, Inc. v. Edw. C. Levy Co.
58 N.W.2d 899 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1953)
Boggs v. Tobin
262 N.W. 272 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1935)