Emery v. Mohler

Citations

• 69 Ill. 221

Syllabus

<p>1. Parol evidence—to explain or vary written contract. It is a general rule of law, that where parties have deliberately put their engagements in writing, in such terms as import a legal obligation without any uncertainty as to the object or the extent of such engagement, it is conclusively presumed that the whole engagement of the parties, and the extent and manner of their undertaking, was reduced to writing, and there is an end of parol evidence to show what the parties meant.</p> <p>2. Same—to show a mistake. Where a party in his bond bound himself to convey to another 280 acres of Wisconsin land, to be selected by the latter from a list of lands described in the bond itself, and made no reference to any other paper for their identification, it was held, that the obligor could not allege in his bill, to reform the bond for a mistake in the description of one of the tracts which had been selected, a parol contract, and prove by parol that the obligee was to select his land from those described in a registered certificate of purchase.</p> <p>8. It follows, from the general rules of evidence, that a party who resorts to equity for the correction of a written instrument in a certain specified particular, can not introduce parol evidence of an original parol contract, or terms or stipulations at variance with the other provisions of the written instrument, as to which no fraud, mistake or surprise is alleged.</p> <p>4. Mistake—must be clearly shown. It is incumbent on a party seeking in equity to reform a written contract, on the giound of an alleged mistake, to show, by clear and satisfactory evidence, the fact of such mistake as to both parties—in other words, that the mistake was mutual. It is not sufficient to show a mis-description of land in the contract, occurring through the party’s own negligence and mistake.</p>