From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 5, 1909
132 App. Div. 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)

Summary

noting that mistake of fact defense limited to mistakes of existing fact

Summary of this case from Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. American Safety Risk Retention Group, Inc.

Opinion

May 5, 1909.

George B. Wellington, for the appellant.

Franklin M. Danaher, for the respondent.



The parties do not disagree materially as to the law applicable to this case, and that is, that in order to entitle the plaintiff to have the release rescinded in equity he must show that it was executed as the result of a mutual mistake as to an existing fact. The defendant insists that the mistake was not one of fact, but of belief or opinion. This question must be judged solely by the allegations of the complaint. These to my mind are ample to show that the release was signed and delivered as the result of a mutual mistake as to an existing fact. It is asserted in the complaint that at the time the release was executed and delivered conditions existed in plaintiff's arm which had not then been discovered which would eventually necessitate its amputation; that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant then knew that those conditions existed, as was the fact, and that the settlement was made and the release signed in good faith under the common but mistaken belief that plaintiff would not lose his arm and upon a mutual mistake as to the conditions actually then existing in the arm that would eventually result in its loss.

These are not in any sense allegations of opinions or beliefs, but of facts, and are sufficient, in our opinion, if proven, in connection with the other facts alleged, to establish a cause of action to rescind the release as founded upon a mutual mistake of fact.

The interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer on payment of costs in this court and at the Special Term.

All concurred.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer on payment of costs in this court and at Special Term.


Summaries of

Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 5, 1909
132 App. Div. 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)

noting that mistake of fact defense limited to mistakes of existing fact

Summary of this case from Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. American Safety Risk Retention Group, Inc.

In Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co. (supra) the Appellate Division wrote as follows: "The parties do not disagree materially as to the law applicable to this case, and that is, that in order to entitle the plaintiff to have the release rescinded in equity he must show that it was executed as the result of a mutual mistake as to an existing fact.

Summary of this case from Landau v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, Inc.
Case details for

Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co.

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO D. DOMINICIS, Respondent, v . UNITED STATES CASUALTY COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 5, 1909

Citations

132 App. Div. 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)
116 N.Y.S. 975

Citing Cases

Vondera v. Chapman

ed facts showing that the release set up in defendants' answers was executed under a mutual mistake of fact…

Woodworth v. Prudential Insurance Co.

The complaint here alleges a mistake on the part of the annuitant as to his state of health at the time of…