Reynolds v. Craft

Citations

• 38 Pa. Super. 46
• 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 89

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Specific performance — Reformation of contract.</p> <p>1. Where a plaintiff comes into a court of equity seeking to enforce the performance of a contract that is oppressive and unconscionable, a chancellor may withhold his aid even where the proof of the defendant shows little more than improvidence, surprise or even mere hardship. In such cases a court of equity may properly adhere to the ancient maxim that a decree is of grace, not of right. But where one seeks the active interposition of a court to reform a contract reduced to writing and signed and sealed by the parties, a very different principle controls. To reform a contract, and then enforce it in its new shape, calls for 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. •</p> <p>Equity — Equity pleading — Presumption.</p> <p>2. It is a fair presumption that a plaintiff who files a bill in equity, states his case as favorably for himself as the facts will warrant.</p> <p>Equity — Reformation of contract — Parol sale of land — Statute of frauds.</p> <p>3. A court in passing upon a bill in equity will not construe a parol bargain for the sale of land as a final bargain, although so averred, where the entire bill and the transaction therein described show plainly that the bargain was not final, but was to be supplemented by a written contract.</p> <p>4. A parol sale of lands cannot be construed as within the exception to the statute of frauds, where it appears that no substantial part of the purchase money was paid at the time, or in pursuance of the alleged sale, and that while possession was shown, the only averment as to improvements was that the purchaser “commenced to make valuable improvements. ”</p> <p>5. A bill in equity to reform a written agreement for the sale of land on the ground that the contract contained a reservation of minerals contrary to the plaintiff’s understanding, cannot be