Volume 37 — Washington Reports, Second Series

[1] APPEAL AND ERROR — REVIEW — TRIAL DE NOVO — MEMORANDUM OPINION. An action in equity is before the supreme court for trial <italic>de novo</italic>, and it is the duty of the supreme court to examine the entire evidence as disclosed by the statement of facts and determine from such examination whether the judgment entered is supported by the evidence; and a memorandum opinion, although helpful, does not have the standing of findings of fact, which, when entered, are accorded great weight. [2] REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS — GROUNDS FOR REFORMATION — MUTUAL MISTAKE. Where an instrument is materially at variance with the identical intention of both parties as to the terms to be embodied therein, either party can get a decree that the instrument shall be reformed so that it will express the intention of the parties, if innocent third parties will not be unfairly affected thereby. [3] SAME — REFORMATION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. The rule applicable to reformation of instruments extends to cases involving negotiable instruments, and such an instrument may be reformed to show that it was signed by an agent for the purpose of binding the principal only; and this reformation may be accomplished by adding a signature. [4] SAME — MUTUAL MISTAKE — EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence is necessary to sustain an action for reformation on the ground of mutual mistake. [5] SAME. Where any doubt exists as to the intent of the parties, reformation will not be granted; however, a mere denial that a mistake was made will not defeat an action for reformation, nor is it necessary that the plaintiff's proof be uncontradicted. [6] SAME — EVIDENCE — PAROL EVIDENCE. In determining whether an instrument should be reformed, the court will look into all of the surrounding circumstances and take into consideration all facts which will throw light on the intention of the parties; and parol evidence is admissible for this purpose. [7] SAME — NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS — MUTUAL MISTAKE — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY. In actions by the signer of notes to reform them to show that he signed them as an officer of the corporate signer and<page_number>Page 694</page_number> that he was not individually bound thereby, held that the plaintiff's claim for reformation was established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. [8] SAME. In an action by the signer of a note to reform it to show that he signed it as an officer of the corporate signer and that he was not individually bound thereby, held that his evidence fell short of the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence necessary to warrant reformation. [9] APPEAL AND ERROR — ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR — ABANDONMENT. Assignments of error not argued in the appellant's brief will be disregarded. [3] See 71 A.L.R. 1307; 45 Am. Jur. 611.