In order to obtain reformation there must have been a genuine valid oral contract back of the written contract to which the written contract may be reformed.1 The ordinary principles of offer and acceptance apply here in determining whether the oral contract was really made or not.2 Reformation is often sought where A intends to have a certain stipulation in the contract, but this intent has not been communicated to B, or where B has not assented thereto. In such case, whether or not A can have rescission,3 he can not have the contract reformed so as to express his own uncommunicated intention, or to express his proposition to which B has not assented, even if A thought that such term was-incorporated in the written contract.4 If the instrument expresses the actual intention of one of the parties, but not the actual intention of the other, reformation can not be granted so as to make it conform to the intention of such other party,5 unless the adversary party has been guilty of inequitable conduct in taking advantage of such mistake.6 If A's offer is in writing and by the mistake of A's agent it does not express A's true intention, A can not have reformation as against B. who has accepted such offer without knowledge of such mistake.7 If A has intended to make use of the language which actually was employed the fact that such intention was induced by mistake as to some feature of the transaction does not entitle A to reformation,8 whether or not such mistake would entitle him to rescission. If by mistake as to the language used in describing a tract of land A believes that he is conveying that part of such tract which came to him by descent, while B believes that he is obtaining both that part which came to A by descent and also that part which A acquired by purchase, reformation can not be granted so as to make the instrument conform to the views of the party who seeks relief.9 If a tract is omitted from a conveyance because the parties believe that title thereto has passed by other means, the deed can not be reformed so as to include such tract.10 If A agrees to pay a certain proportion of the cost of excavating a street to a specified grade, A can not show that he thought that a different grade from that specified in the contract was agreed upon between the parties.11

New Jersey. Koch v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 87 N. J. Eq. 90, 99 Atl. 820.

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

North Carolina. American Potato Co. v. Jeanette Bros. Co., 174 N. Car. 236 [sub nomine, American Potato Co. V. Jennette Bros. Co., 93 S. E. 795] (obiter).

Oregon. Hyde v. Kirkpatrick, 78 Or. 466, 153 Pac. 488 [denying rehearing, Hyde v. Kirkpatrick, 78 Or. 466, 153 Pac. 41].

3 See Sec. 2128.

4 See Sec. 2220 et seq. 5 See Sec. 2128.

1See Sec. 2214.

2 See ch. V.

3 See Sec. 251 et seq.

4 United States. Hearne v. Ins. Co., 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 488, 22 L. ed. 395; Sun Co. v. Vinton Petroleum Co., 248 Fed. 623; Ackerlind v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 635.

Alabama. Tyson v. Chestnut, 100 Ala. 571, 13 So. 763.

Arizona. McMillon v. Flagstaff, 18 Ariz. 536, 164 Pac. 318; Genardini v. Kline, 19 Ariz. 558, 173 Pac. 882.

Arkansas. McGuigan v. Gaines, 71 Ark. 614, 77 S. W. 52; Cherry V- Brtz-zolara, 89 Ark. 309, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 508, 116 S. W. 668; 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. Crane v. McCormick, 92 Cal. 176, 28 Pac. 222; Loftus v. Fischer, 106 Cal. 616, 39 Pac. 1064; Ward v.

Yorba, 123 Cal. 447, 56 Pac. 58; Harding v. Robinson, 175 Cal. 534, 166 ,Pac. 808; Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers'Association, 175 Cal. 668, 166 Pac 983.

Illinois. Bivins v. Kerr, 268 111. 164, 108 N. E. 996; Silurian Oil Co. v. Neal, 277 111. 45, 115 N. E. 114.

Iowa. Breja v. Pryne, 94 Ia. 755, 64 N. W. 669; Simpson v. Kane, 98 Ia. 271, 67 N. W. 247; Bigelow v. Wilson, 99 Ia. 456, 68 N. W. 798; Williams v. Hamilton, 104 Ia. 423, 65 Am. St. Rep. 475, 73 N. W. 1029; Bowman v. Besley, 122 Ia. 42, 97 N. W. 60; Laackmann v. Glasshoff, 182 Ia. 903, 164 N. W. 768.

Kentucky. Buckley v. Frankfort (Ky.), 44 S. W. 139; J. G. Mattingly Co. v. Mattingly, 96 Ky. 430, 27 S. W. 985 [rehearing denied, 31 S. W. 279]; Combe v. Ison, 168 Ky. 728, 182 S. W. 953; 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. Byrne v. Gunning, 75 Md. 30, 23 Atl. 1; White v. Shaffer, 130 Md. 351, 99 Atl. 66.

Massachusetts. Page v. Higgins, 150 Mass. 27, 5 L. R. A. 152, 22 N. E. 63; Chute v. Quincy, 156 Mass. 189, 30 N. E. 550; Whitworth v. Lowell, 178 Mass. 43, 59 N. E. 760.

Michigan. Schlossman v. Rouse, 197 Mich. 399, 163 N. W. 889.

Montana. R. M. Cobban Realty Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 52 Mont. 256, 157 Pac. 173; Parchen v. Chessman, 53 Mont. 430, 164 Pac. 531.

New Jersey. Miller v. Ins. Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 450, 7 Atl 895; Atkinson v. Farrington Co. (N.J. Eq.), 28 Atl. 315; Green v. Stone, 54 N. J. Eq. 387, 55

Am. St. Rep. 577, 34 Atl. 1099 [reversing, 32 Atl. 706]; Ocean Beach Association v. Trenton Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. (N. J. Eq.), 48 Atl. 559.

Hew York. Syms v. New York, 105 N. Y. 153, 11 N. E. 369; Harbeck v. Pupin, 145 N. Y. 70, 39 N. E. 722.

North Carolina. Floars v. Aetna L. Ins. Co., 144 N. Car. 232, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 357, 56 S. E. 915; Shook v. Love, 170 N. Car. 99, 86 S. E. 1007; Allen v. Roanoke R. & Lumber Co., 171 N. Car. 339, 88 S. E. 492.

Oklahoma. Bell v. Bancroft, 55 Okla. 306, 155 Pac. 594.

Oregon. Mitchell v. Holman, 30 Or. 280, 47 Pac. 616 [citing, Kleinsorge v. Rohse, 25 Or. 51, 34 Pac. 874; Epstein v. Ins. Co., 21 Or. 179, 27 Pac 1045; Stephens v. Murton, 6 Or. 193; Lewis v. Lewis, 5 Or. 169]; Hyde v. Kirk-patrick, 78 Or. 466, 153 Pac 488 [denying rehearing, Hyde v. Kirkpatrick, 78 Or. 466, 153 Pac. 41]; Boai-iman v. Insurance Co., 84 Or. 60, 164 Pac. 558; Manley v. Smith, 88 Or. 176, 171 Pac. 897; Turner v. Hartog, 88 Or. 487, 172 Pac. 484.