*1 already amount sufficient o'vned a
them. My derives conclusion government’s to add to ardent desire invariably interpreting stat- revenues g., see, taxpayers; e. adverse to utes dissenting opinion Wil- in Babcock & Cir., Pedrick,
cox Co. v. not allow should that courts But thirk taxpayers to
what deem fairness most sensible
to over-ride e., construction, statutory i. canons of that, specific forth sets a statute where way exceptions, exceptions, permissi- unplication, are of mere taxpay- Moreover, hold
ble.4 unfairness mean er here having acquired taxpayers this, just like situations
securities in gain having sale of the made a tax- claim that securities seek gains, capital or- profits are
able
dinary income. II, Hartnett,
Charles F. Cleveland, H.,N. with whom James C. NOBLE, Defendant, B. Rob ert London, H., brief, ap- N. was pellant. Concord, H., Tiffany, M. Gordon N. FARRIS, Plaintiff, lphRa W. Tiffany Concord, Osborne, with whom & Appellee. H., brief, N. No. 4922. Judge, Court of HARTIGAN, WOODBURY and First Circuit. 6,May Judge. HARTIGAN, Circuit appeal This is an from the District of the United States for the Dis- Hampshire trict of New from a $1,000 for the ment entered November appeal The issue in validity release exe- .plaintiff 21, cuted on March approximately five weeks after a collison supra. cited See cases *2 automobile, in plaintiff’s Robert Noble and Noble I Robert between my riding, had, and an ever were now or which which he and his wife have heirs, administrators, by defendant’s executors or automobile owned can, for, collision hereafter upon shall or the time of the have wife which at defendant, by being by any matter, operated reason of thing cause or occurred whatsoever from the B. Noble. This collision Robert beginning day Hampshire on Feb- of the world to in presents. ruary a resi- date The these ais and the defendant of Maine dent “In whereof, Witness here- have Hampshire. of New resident my unto set hand and seal the twen- ty-first day year in March February 3, 1954, plaintiff’s On thousand, fifty-two. nine hundred against brought the de- wife Ralph W. Farris injuries personal caused for her fendant in a Sealed presence which resulted and this accident delivered in the judgment Reynolds.” Mae with for her which appeal. in this we are not concerned The issue raised this release was per- count for his wife’s Joined with tried the district court without a was a count sonal seeking recovery jury prior to the trial on the merits. for The upon defendant relied the re- of her com- for loss and also lease and introduced no evidence as to society fort, assistance, and benefit. intent in the execu- release, tion consistently main- answer, in his amended taining that the introduction of such defenses, pleaded a in addition to parole evidence would violate the evi- plaintiff as a bar executed dence rule. The im- it is This release to the action. portant note, is a of more than as follows: reads thirty-five years experience, in testified these Presents whom all to “To question by answer to a judge the trial may Concern. Greet- come shall ing: that he did not have in mind to release I, Ralph That, Ye, W. Know any except in consideration Farris, and to his automobile. The also Ninety Dol- and sum 71/100 testified that he was aware that his wife had suffered from headaches and had money of the ($90.71) lawful lars in to me of America States United complained of with trouble her neck and and Noble paid Mrs. Robert hand difficulty sleeping subsequent to the receipt whereof is Noble acknowledged, Robert hereby prior date of the accident and to his remised, have execution of the release. The discharged, released, forever and further testified that from his own ex- presents do these and perience in insurance work he knew that administrators, executors, heirs, companies very rarely, ever, if dis- remise, and forever settle of a claim and that the charge Robert Noble Mrs. the said practice was for the insurance heirs, Noble, exec- Robert to thing.” every- “take a release for administrators, of and utors of action and all manner was also out and causes of ac- cause and tion, suits, plaintiff’s testimony that he had received dues, debts, of mon- sums as consideration for bonds, reckoning, bills, accounts, ey, release and that the own esti- covenants, contracts, specialities, mate of was $91.06. agreements, controversies, promises, trespasses, damages, judge
variances,
ruled
that this release
executions,
extents,
plaintiff, finding
judgments,
did not bar the
as whatsoever, in
the intention of
equity,
Mrs.
was to release
such
law or
claim as he
hay;
might
to his We are
awith unilater
al mistake on
automobile.
Hampshire de
There has been no New
The deiendant contends
*3
cision
to our
that
attention
plain-
was
of
the
not a mistake
fact
authority
proposition
stands as
the
tiff
had claimed
he knew that his wife
as
that a unilateral
in itself con
mistake
ground
injured by the auto-
that
had
she
been
stitutes sufficient
for the invali
and that
mobile driven
defendant
the
v.
dation of a release.
In Poti
general
signed
plaintif
the
this
when he
England
1928,
Machinery Co.,
83 N.
Road
in-
took
risk that
the
232,
587,
H.
140 A.
that the
it was stated
juries might worsen.
the
contracted a
on
settlement
contends that understanding
injured person’s
the
that
assuming
even
the
a mistake of
superficial
bruise was
whereas the bruise
plaintiff, such
mistake does
a unilateral
was in
was
fact severe
serious.
invalidating
not
the release as
warrant
expressly
can be
stated that
releases
a matter of
will not discuss
law. We
set
mistake
aside because
material
supports
whether cr
the evidence
compensation
of
the measurement
finding
the
there was
trial court’s
that
“* * *
theory
of cancellation
unilateral,
part
a
plaintiff
on
of the
mistake
the
applicable to
con
mutual mistake
of
£s
the
our determination
page
generally.” Id.,
at
N.H.
83
tracts
question cf law makes such discussion 234,
page
v.
Callen
ing awas release. There finding WATERMAN CORPORA mistake made STEAMSHIP unilateral TION, Defendant-Appellee. finding in- of innocent court but No. See Currier Docket ducement Etc., Co., 1953, N.H. North 366, British 101 A.2d Second Circuit. *4 It is court our conclusion that the trial Argued April ruling an error of law in
committed April 26, Decided signed by that the release was not a valid defense to this intended because
to release his claim for damage. judgment of is the district court
vacated case remanded to that and the entry
court for for the de-
fendant. Judge (concur-
ring). court concur. As
points out, Farris was an Mr. matters, experienced in insurance terms
and he made no mistake as to the purported or effect of the doubt, pay-
which he executed. No represented
ment to Farris recompense
his mind damage only. But he was so anxious to recognize company
have the insurance
liability property damage claim pay him the estimated amount of that, in considera- willing payment,
tion of this he was execute and deliver the insurance claims, release of all waiting
without to ascertain whether anything wife’s amounted to
whether would involve substantial part. on his
have been an unfortunate error of
ment on the but it
was an error which was not induced or by any misrepresentation
contributed to Julien, City, New Alfred S. York overreaching of the insur- appellant. company. ance Under these circumstanc- City, Behrens, York J. Edward precedent equitable es I of no know principle relieve the legal consequences executing HAND, L. SWAN HINCKS, the release.