Lamb v. Schiefner

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Branch Motor Exp. Co.

    51 B.R. 146 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    E.g., Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd., 2 W.L.R. 202; (funds were mistakenly transferred to defendant's account because of clerical error); Knight Newspapers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 143 F.2d 1007 (6th Cir. 1944) (plaintiff erroneously taxed on dividends, where dividend was declared in favor of plaintiff but it was later discovered that no distributable income was available to pay the dividend); Nuveen v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 88 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1937) (plaintiff purchased building fund bonds that were subsequently held to have been issued in error). Lamb v. Schiefner, 129 A.D. 684, 114 N.Y.S. 34 (2d Dept. 1908) (nine lots of land included in deed by mistake when grantor did not intend to convey land); Scott v. Freedom Development Corp., 219 N.Y.S.2d 494 (Sup.Ct.Suff.Co. 1961) (not officially reported) (mutual mistake in including a land lot in deed where neither party intended to convey the land in question); McFarland v. Braddy, 560 S.W.2d 259 (Mo.App. 1977) (wife's name not included in deed contrary to grantor's intention through a mistake in drafting of the deed). Board of Education City of Chicago v. Holt, 41 Ill.App.3d 625, 354 N.E.2d 534 (1976) (board continued to pay teacher's salary after she had resigned); United States v. Augspurger, 452 F. Supp. 659 (W.D.N.Y. 1978) (tax examiner erroneously issued a refund to taxpayer).

  2. Schlesselman v. Bendsen

    60 A.D.3d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

    In light of the jury's findings of fact as set forth in its special verdict, the Supreme Court properly declared the Lopez deed void and that Lopez has no interest in the subject real property ( see McMahon v Allen, 35 NY 403, 405 [1867]; see also Lamb v Schiefner, 129 App Div 684, 688). Lopez's remaining contention is without merit.

  3. Matter of Wing

    162 Misc. 551 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1937)   Cited 9 times
    In Matter of Wing (162 Misc. 551), the court stated: "The principle underlying this rule is in origin * * * [an] equitable one that `whenever one person has in his possession money which he cannot conscientiously retain from another, the latter may recover it' * * * but its application has long since been extended to legal tribunals as is demonstrated by the fact that as early as 1832 it was held that assumpsit would lie for the recovery of money credited by mistake.

    . 305, 307), with the result that "the mistake can be corrected and the rights of the parties readjusted as to such mistake" ( Carpenter v. Kent, 101 N.Y. 591, 594); a written contract may be set aside "for * * * mistake" ( Wilson v. Deen, 74 N.Y. 531, 534; Interstate Chemical Corp. v. Duke, 92 Misc. 519, 543; affd., 176 A.D. 684), the doctrine in this regard being extended to the point that "a court of equity may rescind an apparent contract for the mistake of one party only, without finding fraud or inequitable conduct in the other" ( Orth v. Kaesche, 165 A.D. 513, 518; affd., 222 N.Y. 612; Crowe v. Lewin, 95 id. 423, 427; Harper, Inc., v. City of Newburgh, 159 A.D. 695, 696; Silverman v. Minsky, 109 id. 1, 4; Goodman v. Laborn, 11 id. 617, 619, 620); and even solemn conveyances will be reformed, property inadvertently omitted therefrom being deemed to be held in trust for the transferee ( Hensler v. Sefrin, 19 Hun, 564) and excessive inclusions being returnable to the transferor ( Lamb v. Schiefner, 129 A.D. 684, 686). The substantially uniform application of the same principle to payments made upon a misapprehension or mistake of fact is clearly reflected in the law.