The typical form of mistake in expression is found where the parties have agreed orally upon the terms of a contract, have then attempted to express these terms in writing, and have, through inadvertence, omitted or misstated terms, or inserted some stipulation which was not agreed upon. Mistake of this sort does not affect the validity of the contract. The question presented to the courts is whether upon these facts the original contract can be enforced or whether the parties are bound by the written stipulations. This question is answered at law by the rule that oral evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations can not contradict the terms of a written contract. This is really a rule of substantive law, though stated as a rule of evidence.1 Hence, there can be no reformation at law.2 In equity, subject to proper limitations to be discussed hereafter,3 a contract of the type under discussion may be reformed so as to express the actual agreement of the parties.4

15 Stead v. Sampson, - Ia. - , 155 N. W. 978.

16 Perkins v. Kirby, 39 R. I. 343, 97 Atl. 884.

1See Sec. 2137 et seq.

2 American, etc., Ins. Co. v. Simpson, 43 111. App. 98; Nance v. Metcalf, 19 Mo. App. 183; Winnipiseogee Paper Co. v. Eaton, 64 N. H. 234, 9 Atl. 221.

3 See Sec. 2221 et seq.

4 United States. Bradford v. Bank, 54 U. S. (13 How.) 57, 14 L. ed. 49; Hearne v. Ins. Co., 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 488, 22 L. ed. 395; Equitable Ins. Co. v. Hearne, 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 494, 22 L. ed. 398; Adams v. Henderson, 168 U. S. 573, 42 L. ed. 584; Ackerlind v. United States, 240 U. 8. 531, 60 L. ed. 783; Western Assurance Co. v. Ward, 75 Fed. 338; New York Life Ins. Co. v. McMaster, 87 Fed. 63, 30 C. C. A. 532.

Alabama. Wright v. Wright, 180 Ala. 343 60 So. 931; Consumers' Coal &

Fuel Co. v. Yarbrough, 194 Ala. 482, 69 So. 897.

Arkansas. State v. Paup, 13 Ark. 129, 56 Am. Dec. 303.

Connecticut. Newell v. Smith, 53 Conn. 72, 3 Atl. 674; West v. Suda, 69 Conn. 60, 36 Atl. 1015.

Florida. Jackson v. Magbee, 21 Fla. 622; Franklin v. Jones, 22 Fla. 526; Fisher v. Villamil, 62 Fla. 472, 39 L. R. A: (N.S.) 90, 56 So. 559; Rosenthat v. First National Fire Insurance Co., - Fla. - , 77 So. 92.

Idaho. Carroll v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 28 Ida. 466, 154 Pac. 985.

Illinois. Lindsay v. Davenport, 18 111. 375; Snell v. Snell, 123 111. 403, 5 Am. St. Rep. 526, 14 N. E. 684.

Indiana. Zenor v. Johnson, 107 Ind. 69, 7 N. E. 751; Roszell v. Roszell, 109 Ind. 354, 10 N. E. 114.

Iowa. Huston v. Furnas, 31 Ia. 154; Croon v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co. (Ia.),

Equity may reform the contract, and enforce it in the same action.5