Skip to main content
· 10/15/1915

Ackerlind v. United States

Citations

  • 51 Ct. Cl. 487

Syllabus

<p>In March, 1905, a contract in two parts was entered into between Erick Lind, since deceased, and the United States acting by a purchasing pay officer of the Navy pay office, New York, for the transportation and delivery of coal to such place in the naval coal depot, Sangley Point, Manila Bay, as the commandant thereof may direct, and this suit seeks a reformation of the contract and judgment for certain items disallowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury.</p> <p>The court below decides:</p> <p>The right to reform a written instrument so as to make it speak the intention of the parties when, by a mutual mistake of the parties, the terms of the agreement between them are not correctly expressed in the instrument as written is unquestioned.</p> <p>The reformation of written contracts for fraud or mistake is an ordinary head of equity jurisdiction, and this court has jurisdiction under the statute to reform contracts as courts of equity may.</p> <p>Where the agreement, as reduced to writing, omits or contains terms or stipulations contrary to the common intention of the parties the instrument will be corrected so as to make it conform to their real intent.</p> <p>Where the relief is sought upon the ground of mistake alone, there being no fraud or questionable conduct, the mistake must be mutual and not merely the mistake of one of the parties.</p> <p>Where a contract has been executed there is a strong presumption to be indulged that it correctly expresses the intention of the parties. This presumption is not easily removed, and the burden of proof is upon the party seeking the reformation.</p> <p>It is a well-settled doctrine that one who deals with a Government official is bound to know the extent of his authority.</p> <p>The proof of the mutual mistake which is relied on to reform a written instrument must refer to a mistake which both parties made when they executed it and, therefore, to some agreement between them which is not correctly expressed in the

Judges: Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.