From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hadley v. Clabeau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 11, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 11, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Horey, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs met their burden of proving that the agreement of the parties was that the eastern boundary of the land sold to defendants would follow the brush line and that the attorney who drafted the deed made an error in the description of the property. When an error is not in the agreement itself, but in the instrument that embodies the agreement, "equity will interfere to compel the parties to execute the agreement which they have actually made, rather than enforce the instrument in its mistaken form" (16 N.Y. Jur 2d, Cancellation and Reformation of Instruments, § 44, at 348; see also, Harris v. Uhlendorf, 24 N.Y.2d 463, 467; Nash v. Kornblum, 12 N.Y.2d 42, 47; Hart v Blabey, 287 N.Y. 257, 262; Meier v. Brooks, 22 A.D.2d 56, 59).


Summaries of

Hadley v. Clabeau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 11, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Hadley v. Clabeau

Case Details

Full title:NILES HADLEY et al., Respondents, v. DONALD CLABEAU et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 11, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 1141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 951

Citing Cases

Gordian v. Donovan

These documents vary from the parties' true intent and agreement as to the transaction to be effected at the…

World Cable Inc. v. Thompson-West

A mutual mistake, however, exists where "the parties have reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either,…