Norard Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Orinoka Mills

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Norard Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Orinoka Mills

206 A.2d 56, 416 Pa. 454, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 705

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 5, 1965

DocketAppeal, No. 4

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 206 A.2d 56 (Norard Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Orinoka Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norard Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Orinoka Mills, 206 A.2d 56, 416 Pa. 454, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 705 (Pa. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are of the opinion that the court below properly granted the equitable relief sought, i.e., the rescission of a quitclaim deed executed by the plaintiff to the defendant on the authority of First National Bank of Sunbury v. Rockefeller, 333 Pa. 553, 5 A. 2d 205 (1939), since all the circumstances giving rise to the equitable consideration in Rockefeller are here both present and applicable.

However, here, as in Rockefeller, it was the careless error of the plaintiff itself which the plaintiff seeks to correct, and which the plaintiff had the responsibility to prevent. Since the plaintiff was not induced to sign the quitclaim deed by any fraud, misrepresentation or improper conduct on the part of the defendant, all the costs necessary for the rectification of the error should be borne by the plaintiff.

Decree affirmed at appellee’s cost.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are of the opinion that the court below properly granted the equitable relief sought, i.e., the rescission of a quitclaim deed executed by the plaintiff to the defendant on the authority of First National Bank of Sunbury v. Rockefeller, 333 Pa. 553, 5 A. 2d 205 (1939), since all the circumstances giving rise to the equitable consideration in Rockefeller are here both present and applicable.

However, here, as in Rockefeller, it was the careless error of the plaintiff itself which the plaintiff seeks to correct, and which the plaintiff had the responsibility to prevent. Since the plaintiff was not induced to sign the quitclaim deed by any fraud, misrepresentation or improper conduct on the part of the defendant, all the costs necessary for the rectification of the error should be borne by the plaintiff.

Decree affirmed at appellee’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.2d 56, 416 Pa. 454, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norard-hosiery-mills-inc-v-orinoka-mills-pa-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack