McCrary & Co. v. Austell, Inman & Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

McCrary & Co. v. Austell, Inman & Co.

46 Ga. 450

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Montgomery, Judge.

We think the facts of this case show that there was “an honest mistake of the law as to the effect of the instrument on the part of both contracting parties,” and that “ such mistake operates as a gross injustice to one, and gives an un[452]*452conscious advantage to the other.” The case is, therefore, relievable in equity: Code, section 3067. Equity having acquired jurisdiction to reform, will retain it to foreclose the mortgage.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Montgomery, Judge.

We think the facts of this case show that there was “an honest mistake of the law as to the effect of the instrument on the part of both contracting parties,” and that “ such mistake operates as a gross injustice to one, and gives an un[452]*452conscious advantage to the other.” The case is, therefore, relievable in equity: Code, section 3067. Equity having acquired jurisdiction to reform, will retain it to foreclose the mortgage.

Judgment affirmed.

McCrary & Co. v. Austell, Inman & Co., 46 Ga. 450 (Ga. 1872).

Pincite

46 Ga. 450 (McCrary & Co. v. Austell, Inman & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related