It is generally said that reformation is given either (a) when the mistake is mutual, or (b) when there is mistake on the one side and fraud or unfair dealing on the other. By mutual mistake is meant that the parties must have come to a genuine and valid oral agreement before they have attempted to reduce it to writing, and that as this attempt fails by reason of mistake, equity, by its remedy of reformation, enforces the original contract. The rule that mistake in expression must be mutual means, therefore, that to obtain reformation the parties must show that there was a valid contract between them, which contract is not correctly set forth in the writing to be reformed.1 In granting reformation, therefore, equity is not making a new contract for the parties, but it is establishing the real contract between the parties which, under the technical rules of law, could not be enforced but for such reformation.2

1 See Sec. 229 et seq.

2 See Sec. 229 et seq.

3 California. Moore v. Copp. 119 Cal. 429, 51 Pac. 630.

Georgia. Hansford v. Freeman, 99 Ga. 376, 27 S. E. 706.

Iowa. Williams v. Hamilton, 104 Ia. 423. 65 Am. St. Rep. 475, 73 N. W. 1029; Stead v. Sampson, - Ia. - , 155 N. W. 978.

Kansas. Wait v. McKibben, 92 Kan. 394, 140 Pac. 860.

Kentucky. Scott v. Spurr, 169 Ky. 575, 184 S. W. 866.

Minnesota. Barnum v. White, 128 Minn. 58, 150 N. W. 227.

Nebraska. Sailing v. Morrell, 97 Neb. 454, 150 N. W. 195.

New Jersey. Lloyd v. Hulick, 69 N. J. Eq. 784, 115 Am. St. Rep. 624, 63 Atl. 616; Smith-Austermuhl Co. v. Jersey Rys. Advertising Co., 12 N. J. Eq. 89, 103 Atl. 388; Zarecki v. Realty Co., 82 N. J. Eq. 489, 89 Atl. 513.

North Carolina. Torrey v. Mc-Fadeyn, 165 N. Car. 237, 81 S. E. 296.

Oregon. Bradshaw v. Trust Co., 81 Or. 55, 158 Pac. 274.

Rhode Island. Bowen v. Wolff, 23 R. I. 56, 49 Atl. 395.

Texas. Conn v. Hagan, 93 Tex. 334, 55 S. W. 323; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Bran-non, 99 Tex. 391, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 548, 89 S. W. 1057; American, etc., Co. v. Pace, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 222, 56 S. W. 377; Pioneer, etc., Co. v. Baumann (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 49.

4 For a discussion of this subject and for illustrations of the application of this principle, see Sec. 241.

5 Baker v. Lane, 82 Kan. 715, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 405, 109 Pac. 182.

1 England. Henkle v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 1 Ves. Sr. 317; Town-shend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. Jr. 328; Shelburne v. Inchiquin, 1 Bro. Ch. 338; Stone v. Godfrey, 5 DeG. M. & G. 76.

United States. Run Co. v. Vinton Petroleum Co., 248 Fed. 623; Ackerlind v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 635.

Arkansas. Louis Werner Sawmill Co. v. Sessoms, 120 Ark. 105, 179 S. W. 185; Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Wigginton, 134 Ark. 152, 203 S. W. 844.

California. Harding v. Robinson, 175 Cal. 534, 166 Pac. 808; Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers' Association, 175 Cal. 668, 166 Pac. 993.

Illinois. Leuer v. Kunz, 274 111. 523, 113 N. E. 878; Silurian Oil Co. v. Neal, 277 I1L 45, 115 N. E. 114. Iowa. Day v. Dyer, 171 Ia. 437, 152 N. W. 53.

Kansas. Haddon v. Neighbarger, 9 Kan. App. 529, 58 Pac. 568.

Kentucky. Royer Wheel Co. v. Miller (Ky.), 50 S. W. 62; 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.

Michigan. Ludington v. Ford, 33 Mich. 123; Robertson v. Smith, 191 Mich. 660, 158 N. W. 207; Schlossman v. Rouse, 197 Mich. 399, 163 N. W. 889.

Missouri. Scheer v. Scheer, 148 Mo. 447, 50 S. W. 111 [affirming, 67 Mo. App. 3711; Benn v. Pritchett, 163 Mo. 560, 63 S. W. 1103; Stephens v. Stephens, - Mo. - , 183 S. W. 572.

Nebraska. Nebraska, etc., Co. v. Ig-nowski, 54 Neb. 398, 74 N. W. 852.

Nevada. Wilson v. Wilson, 23 Nev. 267, 45 Pac. 1009.

New Jersey. Green v. Stone, 54 N. J. Eq. 387, 55 Am. St. Rep. 577, 34 Atl. 1099 [reversing, 32 Atl. 706]; Koch v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 87 N. J. Eq. 90, 99 Atl. 920.

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

New York. Salomon v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 215 N. Y. 214, L. R. A. 1917C, 106, 109 N. E. 121 (obiter).

North Carolina. Ray v. Durham County, 110 N. Car. 169, 14 S. E. 646; America Potato Co. v. Jeanette Bros. Co., 174 N. Car. 236 [sub nomine, American Potato Co. v. Jennette Bros. Co., 93 S. E. 795].

Oregon. Hyde v. Kirkpatrick, 78 Or. 466, 153 Pac. 488 [denying rehearing, Hyde v. Kirkpatrick, 78 Or. 466, 153 Pac. 41 ]; Bradshaw v. Provident Trust Co., 81 Or. 55, 158 Pac. 274; Boardman v. Insurance Co., 84 Or. 60, 164 Pac. 558.

Rhode Island. Diman v. R. R. Co., 5 R. I. 130.

Utah. Deseret National Bank v. Din-woodey, 17 Utah 43, 53 Pac. 215.

Washington. Anderson v. Freeman, 88 Wash. 608, 153 Pac 307; Conrads v. Green, 92 Wash. 269, 159 Pac. 102.

West Virginia. Robinson v. Braiden, 44 W. Va. 183, 28 S. E. 798; R. 1). Johnson Milling Co. v. Read, 76 W. Va. 557, 85 S. E. 726.

2 California. Harding v. Robinson, 175 Cal. 534, 166 Pac. 808.

Indiana. Welshbillig v. Dienhart, 65 Ind. 94; Roszell v. Roszell, 109 Ind. 354, 10 N. E. 114.

Iowa. Day v. Dyer, 171 Ia. 437, 152 N. W. 53.

It may be added that the rule that mistake must be mutual does not, as will be seen later,3 mean necessarily that both parties must be mistaken or that they must have made the same mistake. If a genuine valid contract has been entered into and the terms of this contract are not expressed correctly in the written contract into which the parties subsequently enter, reformation will be given, whether the parties both made the same mistake in assuming that the contract was reduced to writing,4 or whether one party only made the mistake and the other party knowingly took advantage thereof or was otherwise guilty of unfair dealing.5