Reform

to correct; to make anew; to rectify.

To reorganize; to rearrange. Thus, the jury "shall be reformed by putting to and taking out of the persons so impanelled." St. 3 Hen. VIII. c. 12; Bac. 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 Sim. & S. 210; 3 Russ. 424. But a contract will not be reformed in consequence of an error of law. 1 Russ. & M. 418; 1 Chit. Pr^c. 124.

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.

To rectify; to make an instrument what it ought to be; to reconstruct according to the intention of all parties. If through fraud, ignorance, or mistake an obligation does not express the meaning of the parties, it will be reformed so as to conform to it; as, where it is joint, or several, or joint and several, by an oversight.2 Where an agreement as reduced to writing omits or contains terms or stipulations contrary to the common intent of the jfarties, the instrument will be corrected so as to make it conform to the real intent. The parties will be placed as they would have stood it the mistake had not occurred. The party alleging mistake must show exactly in what it consists and the correction that should be made. The evidence must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt upon the mind of the court as to either of these faults. The mistake must be mutual, common to both parties; it must appear that both have done what neither intended. Mistake on one side may be ground for a rescission, q. v. Where the minds have not met there is no contract, and hence none to be corrected." Where an instrument is executed that professes or is intended to carry into execution an agreement, in writing or by parol, previously made between the parties, but which by mistake of the draftsman, as to fact or law, does not fulfill or which violates the manifest intention, equity will coi Tect the mistake so as to produce a conformity of the instrument to the agreement. The reason is, the execution of agreements fau'ly and legally made is one of the peculiar branches of equity jurisdiction, and if the instrument intended to execute the agreement be from any cause insufflcient for that purpose, the agreement remains as much unexecuted as if the party had refused altogether to comply with his agreement, and a court of equity will afford relief in the one case as much as in ' Seavey i;. Beckler, 132 Mass. 204 (1882), Morton, C. J. Op compulsory references, see 21 Cent. Law J. 284-88 (1885), cases. ' Pickersgill v. Lahens, 15 Wall. 144 (1372), Davis, J. the other, by compelling the delinquent party to perform his undertaking according to its terms and the manifest intention of the parties. At the same time, equity has no power to make agreements for parties.' See Joint. The burden of overcoming the strong presumption 'arising from the terms of a written instrument rests upon the moving party. If the proofs are doubtful and unsatisfactory, if there is a failure to overcome this presumption by testimony entirely plain and convincing beyond reasonable controversy, the writing will be held to express correctly the intention of the parties.'^ Parol proof, in all cases, is to be received with great caution, and, where the mistake is denied, should never be made the foundation of a decree, variant from the written contract, except the proof be of the clearest and most satisfactory character. Nor should relief be granted where the party seeking it has' unreasonably delayed application for redress, or where the circumstances raise the presumption that he acquiesced in the written agreement after becoming aware of the mistake. " There are many precedents for reforming policies of insurance in cases where the insured has held the policy until after a loss, in silence and ignorance of the necessity for reformation.*

To correct; to make anew; to rectify. Reformation: reforming; the making a thing to be what it ought. The chief technical use of these terms is with reference to judicial correction of contracts, deeds, and other instruments between parties. When, by accident or mistake, an instrument does not express the intent of parties, a suit intent, and the justice of the case in view of that intent. The differences in meaning between "reform" and "amend" seem to be two. One is, that reform presents more strongly the ideas of an intention or standard which was not expressed or reached by the original instrument, and of a making the instrument anew (forming it again), to conform it to the true design; while " amend " may suggest the idea of improving the instrument from and beyond its original inception; not stigmatizing it as defective at the outset so much as implying that it is capable of improvement. Again, "amend" is more appropriate to judicial proceedings; reform, to instruments inter partes. See Amend. Etymologically, reform seems to mean to construct or make anew; but its technical sense is hardly as strong as this. The decisions generally disavow that the courts will, in the exercise of the power to reform instruments, make new contracts for parties: the power is confined to the correction of defects; to making the instrument correspond to the actual contract as proved. If it may be said to mean make anew, it must, in this sense, be confined to the document or paper, not extended to the transaction embodied. Reform act. A name bestowed on the Stat. 2 Wm. IV. ch. 45, passed to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales; which introduced extended amendments into the system of electing members of the house of commons. Reform school; reformatory. These names have been adopted for institutions where juvenile delinquents are confined and taught, partly by way of punishment and partly in hope of their improvement. Thus, in England, under the Stat. 29 & 30 Vict. ch. 117, § 14, where a juvenile (i.e. a person, to appearance, under sixteen years of age) is convicted, whether on indictment or in a summary manner, of an offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, and is sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of ten days or longer, he may be sent to a reformatory