Coppes v. Keystone Paint & Filler Co.

Citations

• 36 Pa. Super. 38
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 107

Syllabus

<p>Deed — Reformation of deed — Mistake—Equity.</p> <p>A person who seeks to rectify a deed on the ground of mistake must establish, in the clearest and most satisfactory manner, that the alleged intention to which he desires it to be made conformable continued •concurrently in the minds of all parties down to the time of its execution; and, also, must be able’ to show exactly and precisely the form to which the deed ought to have been brought. To reform a contract, and then enforce it in its new shape, calls for a much greater exercise of the power of a chancellor than simply to set the transaction aside. Reformation is a much more delicate remedy than rescission. Hence, in order to justify a decree for reformation in cases of pure mistake, it is necessary that the mistake should have been mutual.</p> <p>If a party who can read, will not read a deed put before him for .execution; or if, being unable to read, will not demand to have it read or explained to him, he is guilty of supine negligence, which is not the subject of protection, either in equity or at law.</p> <p>■ Where an agent of a corporation prepares a deed and sends it to the officers of the company, who insert in the deed a building restriction, •;and then execute it, and the grantee accepts the deed and pays over the purchase money after he has had a full opportunity of examining ■the deed, he cannot afterwards have the building restriction stricken from the deed, on the ground that he had accepted the deed and paid the purchase money without knowledge of the insertion of the restriction.</p>