White v. Meyer

Citations

• 7 Daly 428

Syllabus

<p>When the defendant, having been requested to become surety on a lease, stated to the plaintiff’s agent that he wanted a clause inserted in the agreement of surety-ship, providing that he should have fifteen days’ notice of non-payment, to which tiie agent agreed, and the defendant afterwards instructed his book-keeper to insert a clause providing that he should have notice within fifteen days after nonpayment, and the book-keeper thereupon inserted a clause requiring “ fifteen days’ notice of non-payment, or proof of demand being made,” andtlie defendant, without noticing that the clause was not drawn according to his instructions to his book-keeper, delivered the agreement, and the plaintiff thereupon put the tenant in possession of the premises, neither he nor his agent having any knowledge of what had passed between the defendant and his book-keeper:—Held, that there was no mutual mistake of fact which would warrant the reformation of the instrument, so as to make it require notice to the defendant within fifteen days after non-payment of the rent.</p>