Mattucci v. Sutliff

Ohio Supreme Court

Mattucci v. Sutliff

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 422

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 17, 1924

DocketNo. 18442

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 422 (Mattucci v. Sutliff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mattucci v. Sutliff, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 422 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages ensuing from false representations made respecting two tracts of coal land, which defendants agreed to sell and convey to the plaintiff by a written contract. One of the tracts was unintentionally omitted from said contract, but on the following day defendant conveyed or caused to be conveyed both tracts to the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s action included two causes of action, one seeking reformatiori of the contract so as to include the onfitted tract, and the other asking damages for false representations. The trial court reformed the contract and rendered judgment for damages. Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Held: Upon development of the foregoing-facts the Court of Appeals did not err in refusing reformation of the contract or in dismissing the appeal as to the second cause of action.

Judgment affirmed.

Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.’ Wanamaker, J., not participating.

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

JONES, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages ensuing from false representations made respecting two tracts of coal land, which defendants agreed to sell and convey to the plaintiff by a written contract. One of the tracts was unintentionally omitted from said contract, but on the following day defendant conveyed or caused to be conveyed both tracts to the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s action included two causes of action, one seeking reformatiori of the contract so as to include the onfitted tract, and the other asking damages for false representations. The trial court reformed the contract and rendered judgment for damages. Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Held: Upon development of the foregoing-facts the Court of Appeals did not err in refusing reformation of the contract or in dismissing the appeal as to the second cause of action.

Judgment affirmed.

Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.’ Wanamaker, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattucci-v-sutliff-ohio-1924.