Weed v. Whitehead

5 Citing cases

  1. Friedman Co., Inc. v. Newman

    230 A.D. 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)   Cited 1 times

    ( Gotthelf v. Shapiro, supra; Fischer v. Schram, supra.) For the "certainty of error" ( Weed v. Whitehead, 1 App. Div. 192) in the writing is here manifest; indeed the "circumstances established beyond cavil, make for the plaintiff in that they may afford an explanation of the reason for the mistake, and corroborate the version of the plaintiff." ( Jamaica Savings Bank v. Taylor, 72 App. Div. 567, 569.)

  2. Burt v. Quackenbush

    72 App. Div. 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 1902)   Cited 1 times

    " Indeed, this court has said there must be a "certainty of error." ( Weed v. Whitehead, 1 App. Div. 192, 195, citing, inter alia, both STORY and Southard's Case, supra. See, too, Allison Brothers' Co. v. Allison, 144 N.Y. 21, 31 et seq.) In the light of these rules, I think that the decision of the learned Special Term should be affirmed.

  3. Jamaica Savings Bank v. Taylor

    72 App. Div. 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1902)   Cited 10 times

    " Southard v. Curley ( supra) is cited among the multitude of cases referred to by MARTIN, J., in the Christopher St. R. Case ( supra), who concludes, ut supra, that the proof "must be of the most substantial and convincing character." It is true that this court, in Weed v. Whitehead ( 1 App. Div. 192) said that there must be "certainty of error," but the entire sentence reads: "Courts of equity do not grant the remedy of reformation upon a probability, nor even upon a mere preponderance of evidence, but only upon a certainty of error," and Southard v. Curley ( supra) is cited as authority. Certain circumstances established beyond cavil make for the plaintiff in that they may afford an explanation of the reason for the mistake, and corroborate the version of the plaintiff.

  4. Duke v. Stuart

    45 Misc. 120 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1904)

    Ford v. Joyce, 78 N.Y. 618; Southard v. Curley, 134 id. 148; Christopher St. R.R. Co. v. Twenty-third St. R. Co., supra; Simpkins v. Taylor, 81 Hun, 467; Dougherty v. Lion Fire Ins. Co., 41 Misc. 285. In Weed v. Whitehead, 1 A.D. 192, 195, it was said that reformation is granted only on certainty of error. There is a strong presumption that, where the parties to a written instrument have examined and deliberately signed it, as they did in this case, the instrument is what it was intended by them to be. Moran v. McLarty, 75 N.Y. 25; Drachler v. Foote, 88 A.D. 270-273.

  5. Dougherty v. Lion Fire Ins. Co.

    41 Misc. 285 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1903)   Cited 1 times

    Christopher Tenth St. R.R. Co. v. Twenty-Third St. R. Co., 149 N.Y. 51; Allison Brothers' Co. v. Allison, 144 id. 30; Southard v. Curley, 134 id. 148; Greene v. Smith, 13 A.D. 465; Weed v. Whitehead, 1 id. 195; Johnstown Mining Co. v. Butte Boston Co., 60 id. 347; Stern v. Ladew, 47 id. 340. In Weed v. Whitehead, 1 A.D. 195, it was said: "The authorities all require that parol evidence of a mistake in a written contract must be most clear and convincing. The language of some of the cases is `the strongest possible.'