Wise v. Brooks

Decided April 15, 1892

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1892-04-15

Erom the chancery court of Yazoo county. Hon. H. O. Conn, Chancellor. Appellees, Louis and Herman Wise, partners as Wise Bros., filed this bill seeking reformation of certain deeds, because of an alleged mistake in the description of land. The history of the title, as shown by the record, is as follows: Tbe land is part of a large tract originally owned by John Everett, who is the common source of title.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is doubtless that, but for misapprehension as to the extent of the operation of the deed to Rowe, the parties would have proceeded differently; but that is not the question for equity to consider in a proceeding to reform contracts. It is not what the parties would have intended if they had known better, but what did they intend at the time, informed as they were.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Frost v. Reagon

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Reform”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1936

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, C. J.,

¶1delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

¶2Tbe bill makes a very proper case for tbe remedial power of a court of chancery, wbicb may, in proper cases, rectify mistakes either in sheriffs’ deeds or court proceedings, but, unfortunately for the complainants, they have failed to maintain their bill by sufficient evidence. It is doubtless true that, but for misapprehension as to the extent of the operation of the deed to Bowe, the parties would have proceeded differently; but that is not the question for equity to consider in a proceeding to reform contracts. It is not what the'parties would have intended if they had known better, but what did they intend at the time, informed as they were.

¶3Affirmed.