In the United States the parol evidence rule is no objection to reformation, and an executory contract may undoubtedly be reformed when this does not infringe on the Statute of Frauds. Thus where an insurance policy fails to conform to the application though supposed to do so, or to the intention of the parties, and the error is unnoticed when the policy is delivered, it will be reformed.74 So a bill of lading,75 a promissory note,76 or bond,77 or other contract,78 may be reformed. Therefore, a bond signed by one partner on behalf of the partnership under the mutual mistake of the partners and the obligee of the bond that one partner had authority to execute a bond in connection with the firm business on behalf of the others, will be reformed so as to charge the other partners.79

73 Woollam v. Hearn, 7 Ves. 211; May v. Piatt, [1900] 1 Ch. 616; Thompson v. Hickman, [1907] Ch. 550. In these cases it is not clear how far the objection is based on the Statute of Frauds, and how far on the parol evidence rule.

74Snell v. Insurance Co., 98 U. S. 85, 25 L. Ed. 52; Woodbury Savings Bank v. Insurance Co., 31 Conn. 517; Palmer v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 54 Conn. 488, 9 Atl. 248; Keith v. Globe Insurance Co., 52 111. 518, 4 Am. Rep. 624; Mercantile Insurance Co. v. Jaynes, 87 11I. 199; Home Insurance Co. v. Myer, 93 11I. 271; Longhurst v. Insurance Co:, 19 Iowa, 364; Ben Franklin Insurance Co. v. Gillett, 54 Md. 212; Humboldt Fire Ins. Co. v R. K. LeBlond, etc., Co., 96 Ohio St. 442, 118 N. . 121.

75 Aradalou v. New York Ac. R. Co., 225 Mass. 235, 244, 114 N. E. 297.

76 Hathaway v. Brady 23 Cal. 121.

77 Neiiiinger v. State, 50 Ohio St. 394, 40 Am. St. Rep. 674.

78 Upson Mut. Co. v. American Shipbuilding Co., 251 Fed. 707.

79 Moore v. Stevens, 60 Miss. 809; Wharton v. Woodburn, 4 Dev. & Bat. 507; James v. Bostwick, Wright (Oh.), 142; Purviance v. Sutherland, 2 Oh. St. 478; McNaughten v. Partridge, 11 Oh. 223, 38 Am. Dec. 731; Sale v. Diehman's Ex'rs, 3 Leigh, 548, 555; Kyle v. Robert's Ex'r, 6 Leigh, 495; Gait's Ex'rs v. Calland's Ex'r, 7