{
  "id": 2974706,
  "name": "John C. Hahn and Amanda L. Hahn, Appellants, v. U. W. Easton, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hahn v. Easton",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "119",
  "last_page": "120",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 119"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1787,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "9acf8c85823e38dceacb5335ee1f5555cca71571e99bbea383d302c7cb77fd94",
    "simhash": "1:8817d9f7588f90db",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John C. Hahn and Amanda L. Hahn, Appellants, v. U. W. Easton, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. D. Telford, for appellants.",
      "William A. Mills, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John C. Hahn and Amanda L. Hahn, Appellants, v. U. W. Easton, Appellee.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. William B. Wright, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 17, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by John O. Hahn and Amanda L. Hahn, complainants, against U. W. Easton, defendant, for the reformation of a deed and to enjoin defendant from prosecuting a suit in covenant to recover damages for an alleged breach of warranty in the deed. From a judgment for defendant, complainants appeal.\nE. D. Telford, for appellants.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Reformation of instruments, \u00a7 12 \u2014when written instrument may be reformed on ground of mistake. In order to justify the reformation of a written instrument on the ground of mistake, it is necessary that the mistake should he a mutual one and should be proven by clear and convincing evidence.\n2. Reformation of instruments, \u00a7 47*\u2014when evidence insufficient to warrant reformation of deed for mistake. On a bill to correct an alleged error of a scrivener in drafting a warranty deed by inserting the word \u201c$4700\u201d as the amount of the incumbrance instead of \u201c$5400,\u201d where the evidence was conflicting, and no mention of the incumbrance was made in the contract for exchange of properties, hut the scrivener testified that the provision relative-to incumbrances was inserted by him at the dictation of one of complainants and, as inserted, was correct, evidence held insufficient to warrant reformation of the deed on the ground of mistake.\nWilliam A. Mills, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0119-01",
  "first_page_order": 141,
  "last_page_order": 142
}