Reformation will not be given when the instrument as reformed would not be operative.1 So a bond given to settle a balance due on mutual accounts, which had been kept so loosely that it was impracticable to ascertain the true balance will not be reformed to show such true balance.2 Hence an instrument which does not purport to be a contract and was not meant as a contract cannot be reformed so as to be a contract. Thus a resolution by a council, directing the mayor to make a purchase from A, cannot be reformed at A's instance so as to stand as a contract between the city and A.3 So where a married woman can be bound only in compliance with statute, reformation will not be given for deeds of married women.4 This rule is in force only where a married woman has no power whatever to bind herself other than in the manner provided for by statute. If a married woman has a wider power of making contracts, her contracts and conveyances may be reformed for mutual mistake like those of persons of normal status.5 If the contract is one which is required by statute to be proved by writing, the attempt to reform such a contract in equity by the use of oral evidence presents a close and interesting question, on which there is a conflict of judicial opinion. On the one hand it is felt by many courts that, in view of the safeguards thrown about reformation by the amount of evidence required to obtain such relief, it would merely offer a shelter to fraud to deny reformation in such cases; and accordingly reformation is allowed.6 Thus where by mistake an option of purchase is omitted from a lease, such option may be inserted by reformation.7 A deed or mortgage may accordingly be reformed ;8 and a mortgage may be reformed and foreclosed in one action.9 In other jurisdictions it is felt that "in case of an executory agreement, first to reform, then to decree an execution of it, would be virtually to repeal the statute of frauds."10 Accordingly reformation is denied.11 Thus under a contract for the sale of realty, reformation of a defective description has been denied.12 If reformation of a conveyance of realty can be given, as is often done,13 no good reason appears why reformation should be denied in case of executory contracts. If, by mistake, a seal is omitted from a contract which is required by law to be under seal, equity may grant relief by compelling a seal to be affixed.14

1 Thompson v. Ins. Co., 25 Fed. 296; East St. Louis v. Mfg. Co., 34 111. App. 458; Williamson v. Hitner, 79 Ind. 233; Williams v. Cudd, 26 S. C. 213; 4 Am. St. Rep. 714; 2 S. E. 14; Persinger v. Chapman, 93 Va. 349; 25 S. E. 5; (citing Chapman v. Persinger, 87 Va. 581; 13 S. E. 549; Foster v. Ritson, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 321).

2 Persinger v. Chapman, 93 Va. 349; 25 S. E. 5.

3 Carskaddon v. South Bend. 141 Ind. 596; 39 N. E. 667; affirmed on rehearing, 141 Ind. 601; 41 N. E. 1.

4 Bowden v. Bland, 53 Ark. 53; 22 Am. St. Rep. 179; 13 S. W. 420; Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 55 Cal. 52; Stodolka v. Novatny, 144 111. 125; 33 N. E. 534; Heaton v. Fryberger,

38 la. 185; McReynolds v. Grubb, 150 Mo. 352; 73 Am. St. Rep. 448; 51 S. W. 822; Cannon v. Beatty, 19 R. I. 524; 34 Atl. 1111.

5 Tillis v. Smith, 108 Ala. 264; 19 So. 374; Stevens v. Holman, 112 Cal. 345; 53 Am. St. Rep. 216; 44 Pac. 670; Savings & Loan Society v. Meeks, 66 Cal. 371; 5 Pac. 624; Hayford v. Kocher, 65 Cal. 389; 4 Pac. 350; Christensen v. Hollings-worth, 6 Ida. 87; 53 Pac. 211; Parish v. Camplin, 139 Ind. 1; 37 N. E. 607; Collins v. Cornwell, 131 Ind. 20; 30 N. E. 796; Carper v. Munger, 62 Ind. 481; Hamar v. Med-sker, 60 Ind. 413; Tichenor v. Yankey, 89 Ky. 508; 12 S. W. 947; Murdoch v. Leonard, 15 Wash. 142; 45 Pac. 751.

6 Bradford v. Bank, 13 How. (U. S.) 57; Schwass v. Hershey, 125 111. 653; 18 N. E. 272; Smith v. Jordan, 13 Minn. 264; 97 Am. Dec. 232; Mosby v. Wall, 23 Miss. 81; 55 Am. Dec. 71; Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 585; 7 Am. Dec. 559; Davenport v. Sovil, 6 O. S. 459; Caley v. R. R., 80 Pa. St. 363; Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220; 15 Am. St. Rep. 889; 17 Atl. 1075; Fishack v. Ball, 34 W. Va. 644; 12 S. E. 856.

7 Butler v. Threlkeld, 117 la. 116; 90 N. W. 584.

8 Tillis v. Smith, 108 Ala. 264; 19 So. 374; Fuller v. Hawkins, 60 Ark. 304; 30 S. W. 34; Burmeister v. Olson, 102 Wis. 677; 79 N. W. 1127.

9 Christensen v. Hollingsworth. 6 Ida. 87; 96 Am. St. Rep. 256; 53

Pac. 211; Fifth National Bank v. Pierce, 117 Mich. 376; 75 N. W. 1058.

10 Townshend v. Strangroom, 6 Ves. Jr. 328.

11 Osborn v. Phelps, 19 Conn. 63; 48 Am. Dec. 133; Elder v. Elder, 10 Me. 80; 25 Am. Dec. 205; Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24; 3 Am. Rep. 418; Davis v. Ely, 104 N. C. 16; 17 Am. St. Rep. 667; 5 L. R. A. 810; 10 S. E. 138; Whiteaker v. Van-schoiack. 5 Or. 113.

12 Davis v. Ely, 104 N. C. 16; 17 Am. St. Rep. 667; 5 L. R. A. 810; 10 S. E. 138.

13 See Sec. 1244 et seq.

14 Bernard's Township v. Steb-bins, 109 U. S. 341; Gaylord v. Pel-land, 169 Mass. 356; 47 N. E. 1019; Springfield Five Cents Sav. Bank v. South Congregational Soc, 127