The commonest illustrations of reformation concern conveyances. Where a deed conveys a different or larger estate or right than was intended, and both parties shared an intent as to the estate which should have been conveyed, the grantor is allowed a reformation of the instrument so that it shall express this intent; 56 and under similar circumstances where a deed conveys a smaller estate or gives a smaller right than was intended, or inadequately describes an estate or right, the grantee is allowed a reformation of the instrument so that it shall express the real intention.59 Where, however, the parties misapprehended the extent of the grantor's interest and a conveyance of a half interest in an estate was made, which it was supposed was the whole of the grantor's right, for a consideration based on the supposed extent of the right, equity refused to reform the conveyance so that it would convey an additional right in fact owned by the grantor, without further consideration than that originally fixed for the half interest.60

56 Baker v. Paine, 1 Vea. Sr. 456; Rob v. Butterwick, 2 Price, 100; Murray v. Parker, 19 Beav. 305; I Vinson v. Hutton, 98 U. S. 79,25 L. Ed. 66; Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of Philippine Ida., 247 U. S. 385, 82 L. Ed. 1177, 38 Sup. Ct. 513; Dulo v. Miller, 112 Ala. 687, 20 So. 981; Felton v. Leigh, 48 Ark. 498, 3 S. W. 638; Capelli v. Don-dero, 123 Cal. 324, 55 Pac. 1057; Jackson v. Magbee, 21 Fla. 622; Daiey v. Binkley, 285 111. 513, 121 N. E. 165; Schlehofer v. United States Brewing Co., 189 11I. App. 470; Fleetwood v. Brown, 109 Ind. 567, 9 N. E. 352, 11 N. E. 779; Smellier v. Pugh, 29 Ind. App. 614, 64 N. E. 943; Pritchett v. Frisby, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 433, 63 S. W. 10; Andrews v. Andrews, 81 Me. 337, 17 Atl. 106; Boulden v. Wood, 96 Md. 332, 53 Atl. 911; Tarbell v. Bowman, 103 Mass. 341; Goode v. Riley, 153 Mass. 585, 28 N. E. 228; Gould v. Emerson, 160 Mass. 438, 35 N. E. 1065, 39 Am. St. Rep. 501; Peques v. Mosby, 15 Miss. 340; Cassidy v. Met-calf, 66 Mo. 519; Tapley v. Herman, 95 Mo. App. 537, 69 S. W. 482; Cox v.

Hall, 54 Mont. 154, 168 Pac. 519; Busby v. Iittlefield, 31 N. H. 193; Searles v. Churchill, 69 N. H. 530, 43 Atl. 184; Walker v. Bourgeois, 88 N. J. Eq. 124, 102 Atl. 250; Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. 585, 7 Am. Dec. 559; Andrews v. Gillespie, 47 N. Y. 487; Gallup v. Bernd, 132 N. Y. 370, 30 N. E. 743; Ring v. Mayberry, 168 N. C. 563, 84 S. E. 846; Maxwell v. Wayne Nat. Bank, 175 N. C. 180, 95 8. E. 147; Hamilton v. Asslin, 14 8. & R. 448; Baab v. Houser, 203 Pa. 470, 53 Atl. 344; Haines v. Stare, 249 Pa. 494, 95 Atl. 81; Lawrence v. Staigg, 8 R. I. 256; Perkins v. Kirby, 39 R. I. 343, 97 Atl. 884; Davidson c. Greer, 3 Sneed, 384; Ross v. Armstrong, 25 Tex. Sup. 354, 78 Am. Dec. 574; May v. Adams, 58 Vt. 74, 3 Atl. 187; Hull p. Watts, 95 Va. 10, 27 S. E. 829; Allen v. Yeater, 17 W. Vs. 128; Hagenah v. Geffert, 73 Wis. 636, 41 N. W. 967; Reade v. Armstrong, 7 Ir. Ch. 266, 376; M'Cormack v. M'Cormack, 1 L. R. Ir. 119.

59 Barstow v. Kilvington, 5 Ves. 593; Johnson v. Bragge, [1901] 1 Ch. 28; Warren v. Crow, 195 Ala. 568, 71 So.