Steinbach v. Pettingill

50 A. 443, 67 N.J.L. 36, 38 Vroom 36, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 18
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 11, 1901·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The state of the testimony is correctly summarized in the statement of the trial court delivered upon the direction of the nonsuit. The conclusion reached by him is confirmed by this court. No other result seems possible. There was neither fraud nor misrepresentation to aid the plaintiff’s case; if mutual mistake existed, it was not proved, and if proved, it was not remediable in this action. Upon the other hand, the written contract obtained by plaintiff directly from the defendant’s testator is at once insusceptible of any alteration in this suit that will sustain his claim, and is incapable of any interpretation in any form of action that will permit it.

The judgment of the Pleas is affirmed, with costs.

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

Steinbach v. Pettingill, 50 A. 443, 67 N.J.L. 36, 38 Vroom 36, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 18 (N.J. 1901).

50 A. 443 (Steinbach v. Pettingill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Great United Realty Co. v. Lewis
101 A.2d 881 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Kutzin v. Pirnie
591 A.2d 932 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1991)
Oliver v. Lawson
223 A.2d 355 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1966)
McEnaney v. Spedick
80 A.2d 237 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)
Bernstein v. Rosenzweig
62 A.2d 147 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1948)
Messinger v. Lee
60 A.2d 599 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Spellman v. Dundalk Co.
165 A. 192 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1933)
King v. Milliken
248 Mass. 460 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Hawkins v. Robertson
138 N.E. 92 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1923)
Helm v. Rone
1914 OK 279 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)