Mabb v. Merriam

California Supreme Court

Mabb v. Merriam

62 P. 212, 129 Cal. 663, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 1044

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 12, 1900

DocketL.A. No. 614.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 62 P. 212 (Mabb v. Merriam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mabb v. Merriam, 62 P. 212, 129 Cal. 663, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 1044 (Cal. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

GAROUTTE, J.

This is an action brought to reform a contract and to recover damages for an alleged breach thereof. The question arising upon the appeal is presented upon the face of the complaint.

We will consider the single proposition, Do the facts alleged justify a reformation of the contract as prayed for? The facts are these: Plaintiff J. W. Mabb and defendant Merriam verbally agreed to exchange lands. Plaintiff J. J. Mabb was the husband of his coplaintiff, and in conjunction with one Streeter, the agent of both parties, attended to the drawing up of the preliminary contract. In this contract the name of J. W. Mabb is not mentioned, but the instrument recites that J. J. Mabb is the party of the second part, and as such party he enters into many covenants to perform, etc. He also signed the contract as one of the parties thereto. J. W. Mabb, the wife, now seeks to have the contract reformed by having her name inserted as the party of the second part, and also having her name attached thereto in place and stead of J. J. Mabb.

While a court of equity will reform contracts under many varying circumstances, still it has no power to make a new contract. Its power is simply to reform a contract already made. J. W. Mabb is not a party to the contract, and a court of equity can neither add additional parties nor substitute other parties for those already appearing upon the face of the writing. J. J. Mabb acted as one of the contracting parties, and whether he did it by mistake, through ignorance of law or fact, or did it with knowledge of everything, we deem an immaterial matter. A court of equity cannot change an agreement between J. J. Mabb and Merriman to an agreement between J. W. Mabb and Merriman. This would be to make a new contract, and not to reform a contract already made.

For the foregoing reasons'the judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed.

Harrison, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

GAROUTTE, J.

This is an action brought to reform a contract and to recover damages for an alleged breach thereof. The question arising upon the appeal is presented upon the face of the complaint.

We will consider the single proposition, Do the facts alleged justify a reformation of the contract as prayed for? The facts are these: Plaintiff J. W. Mabb and defendant Merriam verbally agreed to exchange lands. Plaintiff J. J. Mabb was the husband of his coplaintiff, and in conjunction with one Streeter, the agent of both parties, attended to the drawing up of the preliminary contract. In this contract the name of J. W. Mabb is not mentioned, but the instrument recites that J. J. Mabb is the party of the second part, and as such party he enters into many covenants to perform, etc. He also signed the contract as one of the parties thereto. J. W. Mabb, the wife, now seeks to have the contract reformed by having her name inserted as the party of the second part, and also having her name attached thereto in place and stead of J. J. Mabb.

While a court of equity will reform contracts under many varying circumstances, still it has no power to make a new contract. Its power is simply to reform a contract already made. J. W. Mabb is not a party to the contract, and a court of equity can neither add additional parties nor substitute other parties for those already appearing upon the face of the writing. J. J. Mabb acted as one of the contracting parties, and whether he did it by mistake, through ignorance of law or fact, or did it with knowledge of everything, we deem an immaterial matter. A court of equity cannot change an agreement between J. J. Mabb and Merriman to an agreement between J. W. Mabb and Merriman. This would be to make a new contract, and not to reform a contract already made.

For the foregoing reasons'the judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed.

Harrison, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 P. 212, 129 Cal. 663, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 1044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mabb-v-merriam-cal-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack