Where a written instrument fails to express the intention of the parties because of a mutual mistake as to the construction or legal effect of the words of the writing, though there is no misapprehension as to what words have been used, reformation is allowed.38 It is not necessary, moreover, in order to establish

37 See also a criticism of the rule regarding Mistake of Law, and an enumeration of exceptions in 32 Harv. L. Rev. 283.

38Coldcot v. Hill, 1 Ch. Cas. 15; Wake v. Harrop, 1 H. & C. 202; Wilding v. Sanderson, [1897] 2 Ch. 534; Snell v. Insurance Co., 98 U. S. 85, 25 L. Ed. 52; Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260, 35 L. Ed. 678; Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of Philippine Ids., 247 U. S. 385, 38 Sup. Ct. 513, 62 L. Ed 1177; Oliver v. Mutual, etc., Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 277, 200; Abraham v. North German Ins. Co., 40 Fed. 717; Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Green, 114 Fed. 676 (cf. Goodno v. Hotchkiss, 237 Fed. 686); Moore v. Tate, 114 Ala. 582, 21 So. 820; Remington v. Higgins, 54 Cal. 620; Peers v. Mclaughlin, 88 Cal. 294, 26 Pac. 119; Blakeman v. Blake-man, 39 Conn. 320; Haussman v. Burnham, 50 Conn. 117, 22 Atl. 1065, 21 Am. St. Rep. 74; Park v. Blodgett, etc., Co., 64 Conn. 28, 29 Atl 133; Allis. Hall, 76 Conn. 322, 56 Atl. 637;

Marshall v. Lane, 27 App. D. C. 276; Richardson v. Perrin, 137 Ga. 432, 73 S. E. 649; Kyner v. Boll, 182 I11. 171,

54 N. E. 925; Sparta v. Mendell, 138 Ind. 188, 37 N. E. 604; Parish v. Camplin, 139 Ind. 1, 37 N. E. 607; Allen v. Bollenbacher, 49 Ind. App. 589, 97 N. E. 817; Stafford v. Fetters,

55 la. 484, 8 N. W. 322; Jamison v. State Ins. Co., 85 Iowa, 229, 52 N. W. 185; Hausbrandt v. Hofler, 117 la. 103, 90 N. W. 494, 94 Am. St. Rep. 289; Bottorff v. Lewis, 121 Iowa, 27, 95 N. W. 262; Coleman v. Coleman,. 153 la. 543, 133 N. W. 755; Good Milking Mach. Co. v. Galloway, 168 la. 550, 150 N. W. 710; Hyde Park Inv. Co. v. Glenwood Coal Co., 170 la, 593, 153 N. W. 181; Worley v. Tuggle, 4 Bush, 168; Knuckles v. J. D. Hughes Lumber Co. (Ky.), 116 S. W. 1193; Cooke v. Husbands, 11 Md. 492; Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290; Marine Sav. Bank v. Norton, 160 Mich. 614, 125 N. W. 754; Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 30, 33 N. W. 38, 5 Am. St. Rep. 816; Scofield v. Quinn, 54 a mistake which may be reformed that it should be shown that particular words were misunderstood. "It is sufficient that the parties had agreed to accomplish a particular object by the instrument to be executed, and that the instrument as executed is insufficient to effectuate their intention.39 But in a few jurisdictions if the parties knew the words in the instrument and intended to use those words their misapprehension of the legal effect of the language will not be ground for reformation.40

Minn. 9, 55 N. W. 745; Barnum v. White, 128 Minn. 58, 61, 150 N. W. 227; Cassidy v. Metcalf, 66 Mo. 519; Griffith v. Townley, 69 Mo. 13, 33 Am. Rep. 476; Corrigan v. Tiernay, 100 Mo. 276, 13 S. W. 401; Williamson v. Brown, 195 Mo. 313, 93 S. W. 791; Dry Goods Co. v. Grocer Co., 68 Mo. App. 290; McKim v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 196 Mo. App. 544, 196 S. W. 433; Tensing v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 4 Neb. (Unof.) 140, 93 N. W. 756; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18, 22, 66 Am. Dec. 705; Kennard v. George, 44 N. H. 440; Green v. Morris Co., 12 N. J. Eq. 165; McMillan v. Fish, 29 N. J. Eq. 610; Martin v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 109; Trusdell v. Lehman, 47 N. J. Eq. 218, 20 Atl. 391; Miller v. Savage, 60 N. J. Eq. 204, 46 Atl. 632 (rev'd on other grounds, 62 N. J. Eq. 746, 48 Atl. 1004); Pitcher v. Hennessey, 48 N. Y. 415; Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 283; Bacot v. Fessenden, 130 N. Y. App. Div. 647, 124 N. Y. S. 370 (cf. Moran v. Wellington, 101 N. Y. Misc. 594, 167 N. Y. S. 465); Springs v, Harven, 3 Jones Eq. 96; Kornegay v. Everett, 99 N. C. 30, 5 S. E. 418; Clayton v. Freet, 10 Oh. St. 544; McNaughten v. Partridge, 11 Oh. 223; Ormsby v. Longworth, 11 Oh. St. 653; Evants v. Strode, 11 Oh. 480; Gross Construction Co. v. Hales, 37 Okl. 131, 129 Pac. 28; Talley v. Courtney, 1 Heisk. 715; Kelley v. Ward, 94 Tex. 289, 60 S. W. 311; Mower v. Hutchinson, 9 Vt. 242; Beardsley v. Knight, 10

Vt. 185, 33 Am. Dec. 193; MoKensie v. McKenaie, 52 Vt. 271; Green Bay Co. v. Hewitt, 62 Wis. 316, 2l N. W. 216, 22 N. W. 588; Dietrich v. Hutchinson, 73 Vt. 134, 141, 50 Atl. 810, 87 Am. St. Rep. 698; Alexander v. Newton, 2 Gratt. 266; Biggs v. Bailey, 49 W. Va. 188, 38 S. E. 499; Whitmore v. Hay, 85 Wis. 240, 55 N. W. 708, 39 Am. St. Rep. 838; Lardner v. Williams, 98 Wis. 514, 74 N. W. 346; Wisconsin, etc., Bank v. Mann, 100 Wis. 596, 76 N. W. 777; Roweli v. Smith, 123 Wis. 510, 102 N. W. 1.

39 Leitensdorfer v. Delphy, 15 Mo. 160, 167, 55 Am. Dec. 137, and see cases in the preceding note.

40 Rector v. Collins, 46 Ark. 167, 55 Am. Rep. 571; Burt v. Wilson, 28 Cal. 632, 87 Am. Dec. 142; (but see Cal. C. C, Sec.Sec. 1567, 1576, 1578); Wood v. Price, 46 I11. 439; Atherton v. Roche, 192 I11. 252, 61 N. E. 357, 55 L. R. A. 591; Allen v. Anderson, 44 Ind. 395; Nicholson v. Caress, 59 Ind. 39, 53; Easter v. Severin, 78 Ind. 540 (but see later Indiana cases supra note 38); Corning v. Grohe, 65 la. 328, 21 N. W. 662; Andrus v. Blaxiard, 23 Utah, 233, 63 Pac. 888, 54 L. R. A. 354. See also Renard v. Clink, 91 Mich. 1, 13, 51 N. W. 692, 30 Am. St. Rep. 458; Reggio v. Warren, 207 Mass. 525, 535, 93 N. E. 805, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.)340.

In Goodno v. Hotchkiss, 237 Fed. 686, 696, the court said: "There was clearly no mistake of fact; the mistake, if any, was at the most a mistake as to v an intended object upon which they had previously come to an agreement, whether because they ware under a mistake of fact as to the words the writing contained or were under a mistake of law as to the meaning of those words, there are two cases where a court of equity cannot well correct the error by reformation, though if the previous status can be restored and justice requires relief, the transaction may be rescinded.