From the foregoing discussion of the parol evidence rule,1 it appears that common law regards a simple, written contract, if valid, complete and unambiguous, as having in some respects the character of a formal contract. The actual intention of the parties ceases to be of any legal effect. The intention which the courts recognize and to which they give effect is an abstract standardized intention deduced from the words used in the written contract as explained by admissible extrinsic evidence of the surrounding facts and circumstances. In some cases this is the actual intention of the parties. In other cases it bears no relation to the actual intention. In either case this theoretical standardized intention is the one which is recognized and enforced at law and also in equity in all actions upon the contract itself. The law does not afford any means of ascertaining and enforcing the real intention of the parties if it differs from this standardized intention.2 Extrinsic evidence may overthrow the contract as a whole,3 or it may be used to show some form of subsequent discharge,4 but no method has thus far been considered by which the real agreement which is often back of the written contract can be enforced. Equity, however, affords a means by which the real intention of the parties can be ascertained and effect can be given thereto in spite of the fact that the parties have attempted to express their intention in a written instrument, and because of the mistake of the parties, or because of the mistake of the party who seeks relief and the fraud or inequitable conduct of the parties against whom relief is sought, the written instrument does not express the real intention of the parties.5 This means is known'as reformation, and a discussion of some of its general principles is necessary, since by means of this

1 See ch. LXIX.

2 See Sec. 2065 and Sec. 2146 et seq.

3 See Sec. 2171 et seq.

4 See Sec. 2185.

5 England. Henkle v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 1 Ves. Sr. 317.

United States. Hunt v. Rousmanier, 21 U. S. (8 Wheat.) 174, 5 L. ed. 589; Ackerlind v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 635.

Alabama. Holland Blow Stave Co. v. Barclay, 193 Ala. 200, 69 So. 118.

Idaho. Bowers v. Bennett, 30 Ida. 188, 164 Pac. 93. '

Illinois. Silurian Oil Co. v. Neal, 277 111. 45, 115 X. E. 114.

Iowa. Day v. Dyer, 171 Ia. 437, 152 N. W. 53; Kinman v. Hill, - Ia. - , 156 N. W. 168; Buck Auto, Carriage & Implement Co. v. Tietge, 174 Ia. 103, 156 N. W. 313.

Kansas. Proctor v. Fife, 97 Kan 431. 135 Pac. 931.

Kentucky. Cecil v. Kentucky Livestock Insurance Co., 165 Ky. 211, 176 S. W. 986; Scott v. Spurr, 169 Ky. 575, 184 S. W. 866.

Louisiana. Louisiana Sulphur Mining Co. v. Brimstone R. & Canal Co., 143 La. 143, 79 So. 324.

Maryland. White v. Shaffer, 130 Md. 351, 99 Atl. 66.

Massachusetts. Aradalou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 225 Mass. 235, 114 N. E. 297.

Minnesota. Mahoney v. Minnesota Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., 136 Minn. 34, 161 X. W. 217.

New Jersey. Moore v. Brennon Distributing Corporation, - N. J. Eq. - , 105 Atl. 592.

New Mexico. Cleveland v. Bateman, 21 N. M. 675, 158 Pac. 648.

New York. MacDonald v. Crissey, 215 X. Y. 609, 109 X. E. 609.

North Carolina. Ray v. Patterson, 170 X. Car. 226, 87 S. E. 212; Sills v. Ford, 171 N Car. 733, 88 S. E. 636; America Potato Co. v. Jeanette Bros. Co., 174 X. Car. 236 [sub nomine, American Potato Co. v. Jennette Potato Co., 93 S. E. 795]; Caffey v. Oak Furniture Co., 173 N. Car. 387, 95 S. E. 619.

Oklahoma. Cleveland v. Rankin, 48 Okla. 99, 149 Pac. 1131.

form of relief, equity can in proper cases and under proper limitations, unhampered by the parol evidence rule, enforce the oral contract which the parties, through mistake in the expression, have not reduced to writing correctly.6

Oregon. Coates v. Smith, 81 Or. 556, 160 Pac. 517.

West Virginia. Melott v. West, 76 W. Va. 739, 86 S. E. 759.

Wisconsin. Pedersen v. Hansen, 161 Wis. 355, 154 N. W. 363; Van Brunt v. Ferguson, 163 Wis. 540 [sub nomine, Van Brunt v. Wisconsin Consistory Home Association, 158 N. W. 295].

6 United States. Newton v. Wooley, 105 Fed. 541; Brown v. Meserve, 91 Fed. 229, 33 C. C. A. 472; Brent v. Simpson, 238 Fed. 285, 151 C. C. A. 301; Ackerlind v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 635.

Alabama. Wright v. Wright, 180 Ala. 343, 60 So. 931; Holland Blow Stave Co. v. Barclay, 193 Ala. 200, 69 So. US.

Arkansas. Deniston v. Phillips, 121 Ark. 550, 181 S. W. 911.

California. Horton v. Winbigler, 175 Cal. 149, 165 Pac. 423.

Colorado. Arbaney v. Usel, 61 Colo. 311, 157 Pac. 204.

Idaho. Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Ida. 133, L. R. A. 1917, 663, 100 Pac. 1052; Bowers v. Bennett, 30 Ida. 188, 164 Pac. 93.

Illinois. Silurian Oil Co. v. Neal, 277 111. 45, 115 N. E. 114; McGinnis v. Boyd, 279 111. 283, 116 N. E. 672.

Indiana. Schlosser v. Nicholson, 184 Ind. 283, 111 N. E. 13.

Iowa. Day v. Dyer, 171 Ia. 437, 152 N. W. 53; Kinman v. Hill (Ia.), 156 N. W. 168; Buck Auto, Carriage & Implement Co. v. Tietge, 174 Ia. 103, 156 N. W. 313.

Kansas. Proctor v. Fife, 97 Kan. 431, 155 Pac. 931; Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co. v. Schalansky, 100 Kan. 562, 165 Pac. 289.

Kentucky. Lindley v. Sharp, 46 Ky. (7 T. B. Mon.) 248; Kentucky, etc., Association v. Lawrence, 106 Ky. 88, 49 S. W. 1059; Cecil v. Kentucky Livestock Insurance Co., 165 Ky. 211, 176 S. W. 986; Scott v. Spurr, 169 Ky. 575, 184 S. W. 866; Lamastus v. Morgan's Committee, 178 Ky. 805, 200 S. W. 32.

Louisiana. Louisiana Sulphur Mining Co. v. Brimstone R. & Canal Co., 143 La. 743, 79 So. 324.

Maryland. Conner v. Groh, 90 Md. 674, 45 Atl. 1024; White v. Shaffer, 130 Md. 351, 99 Atl. 66.

Massachusetts. Kennedy v. Poole, 213 Mass. 495, L. R. A. 1917A, 600, 100 N. E. 635; Aradalou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 225 Mass. 235, 114 N. E.297.

Minnesota. Mahoney v. Minnesota Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., 136 Minn. 34, 161 N. W. 217.

New Jersey. Moore v. Brennon Distributing Corporation, - N. J. Eq. - , 105 Atl. 592.

New York. MacDonald v. Crissey, 215 N. Y. 609, 109 N. E. 609.

North Carolina. Ray v. Patterson, 170 N. Car. 226, 87 S. E. 212; Sills v. Ford, 171 N. Car. 733, 88 S. E. 636; Freeman v. Croom, 172 N. Car. 524, 90 S. E. 523; America Potato Co. v. Jeanette Bros. Co., 174 N. Car. 236 [sub nomine, American Potato Co. v. Jen-nette Bros. Co., 93 S. E. 795]; Maxwell v. Wayne National Bank, 175 N. Car. 387, 95 S. E. 147.

Oklahoma. Cleveland v. Rankin, 48 Okla. 99, 149 Pac. 1131.

Oregon. Coates v. Smith, 81 Or. 556, 160 Pac. 517.

Pennsylvania. Sidney School Furniture Co. v. School District, 130 Pa. St. 76, 18 Atl. 604.

West Virginia. Melott v. West, 76 W. Va. 739, 86 S. E. 759.

Wisconsin. Pedersen v. Hansen, 161 Wis. 355, 154 N. W. 363; Van Brunt v. Ferguson, 163 Wis. 540 [sub nomine, Van Brunt v. Wisconsin Consistory Home Association, 158 N. W. 295].