Case Name: Abraham Frankenberg, Appellant, v. Samuel Perlman, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-11-23
Citations: 180 A.D. 174
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abraham Frankenberg, Appellant, v. Samuel Perlman, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 180
Pages: 174–181

Head Matter:
Abraham Frankenberg, Appellant, v. Samuel Perlman, Respondent.
First Department,
November 23, 1917.
Pleading — allegations stating cause of action for reformation of contract to express agreement of parties.
Allegations in a counterclaim that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase stock on defendant’s retirement from business at its book or actual value, and that the plaintiff had falsely represented that as used in the written agreement, the words “ face value ” meant book value or actual value, which representation was made fraudulently, with intent to deceive the defendant, and that the defendant relying on such representation and believing the same to be true, signed the agreement, present a cause of action for the reformation of the contract to express the real agreement of the parties.
Davis and Scott, JJ., dissented, with opinion,
Appeal, by the plaintiff, Abraham Frankenberg, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 30th day of April, 1917, denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings consisting of a complaint, an amended answer and the reply thereto.
Benjamin Jaffe, for the appellant.
Julius M. Lowenstein, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Page, J.:
The allegations in the counterclaim that the plaintiff had agreed to repurchase the stock on defendant's retirement from the business at its book or actual value, and that the plaintiff had falsely represented that as used in the written agreement the words " face value " meant book value or actual value, which representation was made fraudulently with intent to deceive the defendant, and that the defendant, relying on said representation and believing the same to be true, signed the agreement, present a cause of action for the reformation of the contract to express the real agreement of the parties.
The representation was as to a fact, and not the expression of an opinion, knowingly and fraudulently made to induce the defendant to sign an agreement which in fact did not express their true agreement.
These allegations state fraud on one side and mistake on the other, such as would move a court of equity to grant relief.
The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Laughlin and Smith, JJ., concurred; Scott and Davis, JJ., dissented.