The so-called parol evidence rule has no application in actions to reform a written contract,1 and extrinsic evidence is always admissible. The amount of evidence necessary to entitle the party seeking reformation to the relief sought is variously stated. It is always more than a mere preponderance. The evidence must be much clearer than a mere preponderance necessarily is to permit reformation.2 The usual form of statemerit is that the evidence must be clear and convincing,3 though it is said also that it must be clear and satisfactory,4 "satisfactory,"5 "full, clear and decisive,"6 "clear and precise,"7 "clear, precise and undubitable,"8 "clear, cogent," "strong and convincing,"9 " clear, positive and convincing,"10 clear, convincing and satisfactory,11 most clear and convincing,12 "clear and most satisfactory,"13 the "clearest and most satisfactory" evidence,14 the clearest, strongest and most irrefragable evidence,15 evidence as strong as if the mistake were admitted,6 or evidence which leaves "no rational doubt."17

7 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Mc-Master, 87 Fed. 63; 30 C. C. A. 532; Whittemore v. Farrington, 76 N. Y. 452; Moran v. McLarty, 75 N. Y. 25; Jackson v. Andrews, 59 N. Y. 244; Welles v. Yates, 44 N. Y. 525; Nevins v. Dunlap, 33 N. Y. 676; Rider v. Powell, 28 N. Y. 310. "The court could not make a new contract for the parties, but could only cause their actual agreement to be expressed according to its terms; nor could it reform the instrument according to the terms in which (A) understood it, unless it should be shown that (B) also had the same understanding of its terms." Ward v. Yorba, 123 Cal. 447, 449; 56 Pac. 58.

8Du Bois v. Waterworks Co., 176 Pa. St. 430; 53 Am. St. Rep. 678; 34 L. R. A. 92; 35 Atl. 248. The statute authorized the court on bill filed by any citizen who used the water, alleging impurity or deficiency to compel the water company to correct the evil complained of and to make "such order in the premises as may seem just and equitable." Under this statute, the supreme court said the lower court might proceed "even to the reformation of the contract upon a basis just and equitable to both parties, where, as here, it was made in mutual mistake as to an essential fact, and a remedy for the difficulty may be found without violation of the main intent of both parties in the original instrument."

These remarks are obiter, as the question was as to the right of the borough to rescind the contract because the water supply was defective owing to a mistake in the capacity of the stipulated source of supply. Rescission was denied.

See also United States Water Works Co. v. Du Bois, 176 Pa. St. 439; 35 Atl. 251, to the effect that the borough cannot rescind by ordinance annulling such contract.

1 See Sec. 1237.

2 Bartlett v. Brown, 121 Mo. 353; 25 S. W. 1108; Sauer v. Nehls, 121 la. 184; 96 N. W. 759; Allison Brothers' Co. v. Allison, 144 N. Y. 21; 38 N. E. 956.

3 Bowers v. Ins. Co., 68 Fed. 785; Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 30; 5 Am. St. Rep. 816; 33 N. W. 38; Hunter v. Patterson, 142 Mo. 310; 44 S. W. 250; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Wagner (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 214.

4 Baldwin v. Fence Co., 67 Fed. 853; Hochstein v. Berghauser, 123 Cal. 681; 56 Pac. 547; Seeman v. Biemann, 108 Wis. 365; 84 N. W. 490. "Clear proof " is the requisite in Seeley v. Baldwin, 185 111. 211; 56 N. E. 1075. It is said that the facts must be "clearly proved " in New York Life Ins. Co. v. McMas-ter, 87 Fed. 63; 30 C. C. A. 532.

5 Ward v. Yorba, 123 Cal. 447; 56 Pac. 58.

6 Cross v. Bean, 81 Me. 525; 17 Atl. 710.

7Liggett v. Shira, 159 Pa. St. 350; 28 Atl. 218.

8 Sanders v. Sharp, 153 Pa. St. 555; 25 Atl. 524.

9 Foster v. Schmeer, 15 Or. 363; 15 Pac. 626.

10 Turner v. Shaw, 96 Mo. 22; 9 Am. St. Rep. 319; 8 S. W. 897.

11 Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Wood, 50 Neb. 381; 69 N. W. 941.

12 Clark v. Ry., 127 Mo. 255; 30 S. W. 121.

13Habbe v. Viele, 148 Ind. 116; 45 N. E. 783; rehearing denied, 47 N. E. 1.

14Milligan v. Pleasants, 74 Md. 8; 21 Atl. 695; Hollenback's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 322; 15 Atl. 61G; Donaldson v. Levine, 93 Va. 472; 25 S. E. 541.

15 Ferring v. Fleischmann (Tenn. Ch. App.), 39 S. W. 19.

16 Ford v. Joyce, 78 N. Y. 618. 17 Rowley v. Flannelly, 30 N. J.

Eq. 613, 614; quoted in Green v. Stone, 54 N. J. Eq. 387, 399; 55 Am. St. Rep. 577; 34 Atl. 1099; reversing, 32 Atl. 706; Hupsch v. Resch, 37 N. J. Eq. 657, 663.