Case ID: tenn_17/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Reese J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wood vs. Goodrich.
    Where the plafntiffor other party seeks to give eflect to a deed in a court of law, by instituting a suit thereon; such court cannot upon his avernnient of fraud or mistake/ correct the deed, and give to it effect as corrected; the party must resort to a court of Chancery.
    
      /¿n averment and proof 6y the pTaintiflythat the* noteor instrument sued on,'was by agreementof the partiesto fall due 25th December, 1833, and that by mistake offthe-parties, produced by the fraud of defendant, it was made payable 25th December, 1834, are inadmissible.
    This is an action of debt founded upon the following writing obligatory: On or before the 23rd day of December next, I promise to pay Peyton Wood- or order, three hundred and nineteen dollars. For value received, this 16th day of December, 1833.
    SILAS C. GOODRICH, [seal.].
    The action was commenced in April, 1834. In the declaration, the plaintiff with a view to obviate the objection, that the action had been commenced before, by the writing, the money became due, makes this averment: that the 25th day of December, mentioned in said writing obligatory, when said writing obligatory was to fall due, was by the contract of the parties the 25th December, 1333, and the 25th December, 1834, was inserted by mistake or fraud of defendant;
    The defendant craved oyer of the writing obligatory, and pleaded that the money by the terms of said writing was not made payable till December, 1834. Plaintiff replied, that December, 1833, was the time intended by the parties when said note should fall due, and that 25th December, 1834, was inserted by the mistake of the parties, produced by the fraud of the defendant. To this replication the defendant filed a demurrer, which the circuit court sustained.
    Jkf. B:own, for plaintiff in error.
    -,McClanahan, for defendant in error.
   Reese J.

delivered.the opinion of the court.

We think the judgment of the circuit court is correct. For although, when in a sealed instrument a word is omitted, without which, the sense becomes incomplete; and when also, the instrument in its recitals or otherwise, obviously supplies the meaning of what is omitted, a court of law will construe such instrument and give effect to it, as if the word omitted had been inserted, and as the sense and obvious meaning of the instrument requires, still, such a case does not violate the rule, as familiar as it is fundamental, that a court of law will not hear parol proof to vary the terms or to enlarge or diminish the obligation of written instruments or deeds, nor will a court of Equity, except upon the ground of fraud or mistake. If the fraud be upon the part of him, who sets up such instrument, as if it consist in misreading the instrument, interpolating words, &c. the court of law will hear evidence in resistance of the deed or instrument, on the plea of the defendant, in a proper case. But on the part of him who sets up a deed and seeks to give it effect in a court of law, such court, cannot upon his averment of fraud or mistake, correct the deed and give to it effect, as corrected. To achieve such a purpose, he must resort to a court of Chancery. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.