Summary

Nathan Clifford Ivinson v. Hutton (98 U.S. 79)…

Owing to the ability of courts of equity not only to investigate complicated accounts, but also to compel the specific performance of agreements, and to reform or rescind the same, in case of fraud or mistake, and to restrain breaches of duty for the future, it is to them rather than courts of law that partners usually have recourse for the settlement of controversies among themselves.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Ivinson v. Hutton (98 U.S. 79)…

Equities of the kind, whether it be for the re-execution, reform, or rescission of the instrument, like the equity for specific performance of a contract, are incapable of enforcement at common law, and therefore necessarily fall within the peculiar province of the courts invested with equitable jurisdiction.
Power to reform written contracts for fraud or mistake is everywhere conceded to courts of equity, and it is equally clear that it is a power which cannot be exercised by common-law courts.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Ivinson v. Hutton (98 U.S. 79)…

Proof of the most unquestionable character is exhibited in the record that the understanding of the parties was that the respondent was to pay to the complainant the whole amount the latter paid into the firm, less the sums he had drawn out, and that the clerk designated by the parties to examine the books and compute the amount made the mistake alleged in the bill of complaint.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature