History
  • No items yet
midpage
Luning v. Brooks
1 Cal. Unrep. 29
Cal.
1856
Check Treatment
MURRAY, C. J.

— The plaintiff filed his bill in equity in the court below to reform a written contract, alleging mistake, etc.

The jurisdiction of courts of chancery in such cases is well established, and relief always granted where the mistake is established by clear and positive testimony. In cases of doubt, however, it is denied on the well-known policy of the law that parol evidence ought not to be admitted to alter or vary the terms of a written instrument, and that parties having reduced their contract to writing are supposed to have embraced their full intentions therein.

We have examined the testimony in this case, and are of opinion that it was not of that character to warrant a court of equity (in accordance with the rules governing such cases) to reform or alter the terms of a contract solemnly entered into in writing.

Judgment reversed.

I concur: Terry, J.

Case Details

Case Name: Luning v. Brooks
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 25, 1856
Citation: 1 Cal. Unrep. 29
Docket Number: No. 1117
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.