Murphy v. Rooney
Synopsis
Mutual Promises Take Contract Out oe Statute oe Frauds.— When two parties, who are each in possession of adjoining tracts of land on the same quarter section, apply to the owner to purchase, each one half of the same, and enter into a mutual written agreement, that each shall deed to the other the land he obtains a title to, which is in the possession of the other, upon being reimbursed the money he pays for the same, these mutual promises constitute a sufficient consideration to support the agreement, and take it out of the eighth section of the Statute of Frauds.
Beeorming Written Contracts.—When, by the mistake of a draftsman, some of the terms of an agreement are omitted in reducing it to writing, it should be reformed by the Court, and be enforced as reformed.
By the Court: Upon looking into the record, we are of opinion that the mutual promises of McCloy and Carroll, contained in the written agreement of November, 1865, constitute a sufficient consideration to support the agreement, and so take it out of the eighth section of the Statute of Frauds.
The Court having found the fact that by mistake of the .draftsman some of the terms of the agreement had been omitted in drawing it up, should have entered a decree re[80]forming the instrument in those particulars, and specifically enforcing it as reformed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)