Reform

To reorganize; to rearrange. Thus, the jury “shall be reformed by putting to and taking out of the persons so impannelled.”

Stat. 3 Hen. VIII. c. 12; Bacon, Abr. Juries (A).

To reform an instrument in equity is to make a decree that a deed or other agreement shall be made or construed as it was originally intended by the parties, when an error or mistake as to a fact has been committed. A contract has been reformed although the party applying to the court was in the legal profession and he himself drew the contract, it appearing clear that it was framed so as to admit of a construction inconsistent with the true agreement of the Parties; 1 S. & S. 210; 3 Russ. 424. But a contract will not be reformed in consequence of an error of law; see 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 109; 1 Russ. & M. 418; 1 Chitty, Pr. 124; Clapp v. Hoffman, 159 Pa. 531, 28 Atl. 362; nor unless the mistake is mutual; Steinberg v. Ins. Co., 49 Mo. App. 255; and only as between the original parties, or those claiming under them in priority, including purchasers with notice; Cross v. Bean, 81 Me. 525, 17 Atl. 710. Equity will not reform instruments Which express an intention of the parties at the time they are made, based on the knowledge then possessed by them, though their intention would have been different if they had been better informed; Wise v. Brooks, 69 Miss. 891, 13 South. 836. A person who seeks to rectify a deed on the ground of mistake must establish in the clearest and most satisfactory manner, that the alleged intention to which he desires it to be made conformable continued concurrently in the minds of all the parties down to the time of its execution; and also must be able to show exactly and precisely the form to which the deed ought to be brought; 4 De G. & J. 265; Roberts v. Derby, 68 Hun, 299, 23 N. Y. Supp. 34; Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 12 Sup. Ct. 239, 35 L. Ed. 1063.

Before commencing an ac- Ind. 19, 32 N. E. 713.

Where the mistake has been on one side only, the utmost that the party desiring relief can obtain is rescission, not reformation; Ad. Eq. 371; Bellows y.

Stone, 14 N. H. 175.

But if there is mistake on one side and fraud on the other, there is a case for reformation; Welles v. Yates, 44 N. Y. 525; Bisph. Eq. § 409; Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 12 Sup. Ct. 239, 35 L. Ed. 1005. A lease will not be reformed in equity, so as to make it conform to another lease, where both leases have the same legal effect, as judicially construed; Liggett v. Shira, 159 Pa. 350, 28 Atl. 2 IS. Where a deed does not express the intention of the parties at the time of its execution, equity will afford relief and decree a reformation; Baldwin v. Fence Co., 73 Fed. 574, 19 C. C. A. 575, 39 U. S. App. 302. A clerical mistake by one party at the time of executing the contract, unknown to the other, for which the latter is not responsible, will be sufficient ground for such relief and decree; Trenton T. C. Co. v. Shingle Co., 80* Fed. 4G. Where a policy of insurance was issued to a receiver of property, there being a contest as to the title to the property held by the receiver, the real owner, having established his title, may have the policy reformed, or, if the intent of the parties appears on its face, no reformation is necessary in order to enable the real owner to maintain an action on it; Steel v. Ins. Co., 51 Fed. 715, 2 C. C. A. 403, 7 U. S. App. 325. The correction of a written instrument for fraud or mistake in its execution requires clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence; U. S. v. Budd, 14-1 U. S. 151, 12 Sup. Ct. 575, 36 L. Ed. 3S4. It will not be decreed against bona fide purchasers for value; American Mtg. Co. of Scotland v. O’Harra, 50 Fed. 278, 5 C. C. A. 502, 35 U. S. App. 79. Where a bid for certain public work contained an error in the amount for which it was offered to do the work, and the bidder sought to rescind his offer, it was held that equity would not reform a written contract unless a mistake is proved to be the mistake of both parties, but may rescind and cancel a contract upon the ground of a mistake of one party as to facts material to the contract; Moffett Co. v. Rochester, 82 Fed. 255. Where a decree has been entered reforming a contract, the contract as so reformed will be taken as the true agreement; Blair v. Implement Co., 87 Neb. 736, 128 N. W. 632.

See Mistake.