Case Name: Abigail Winslow vs. Daniel Driskell
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1857-10
Citations: 9 Gray 363
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abigail Winslow vs. Daniel Driskell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 363–363

Head Matter:
Abigail Winslow vs. Daniel Driskell.
Evidence that neither of the parties to a deed understood its legal effect and operation a the time of its delivery is inadmissible to defeat the deed.
Writ of entry to. recover a life estate in the premises described in the writ. Trial before Thomas, J., who signed the following bill of exceptions:
“ The demandant produced a lease of the premises made to her by the tenant for and during the term of her natural life; and proved its execution. The tenant then admitted that there was the usual delivery of the instrument; but contended that there was no legal delivery in this case, for the reason that neither oí the parties understood the legal effect of the instrument, or its operation; and offered to prove such to be the fact. But the court ruled such testimony to be incompetent, and instructed the jury to find a verdict for the demandant. And the tenant excepts.”
J. C. Stone, for the tenant.
R. C. Pitman, for the demandant, was stopped by the court.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Nothing is better settled than the rule which precludes a party from proving that he misunderstood the legal effect of a written contract, which has been duly executed and delivered by him, where there is no allegation of fraud by which he was misled or deceived. Exceptions overruled.