REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS-MISTAKE OF FACTS UNDERLYING INTENTION

Authors

Abstract

A debtor determined to mortgage all his property for the benefit of several creditors. His son, commissioned to draw the instrument, was informed that a note to the plaintiff, indorsed by the debtor, would be taken care of by the party primarily liable. So he intentionally omitted the plaintiff's note from the mortgage executed to the other creditors. The note was never paid. After foreclosure of the mortgage, leaving no surplus, the plaintiff sought reformation of the mortgage so as to be included as mortgagee, claiming that the debtor's intention to secure all bank creditors was not executed through mistake when the mortgage was made. Held, plaintiff was not entitled to reformation. Central Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank (Miss. 1930) 130 So. 99.

Recommended Citation

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS-MISTAKE OF FACTS UNDERLYING INTENTION, 29 Mich. L. Rev. 386 (1931).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol29/iss3/34