Where by mistake an estate which by agreement should have passed to A alone is conveyed to A and B,1 or one which should have passed to A and B, is conveyed to A alone,2 or where property was to be settled on a married woman to her separate use, and by mistake is so conveyed as to be part of her general property,3 reformation may be had. So if the name of the grantee corporation is erroneously stated, reformation may be had.4 If a conveyance is taken in the name of a partnership as the grantee, it may be reformed by inserting the names of the partners.5

8 Kelly v. Galbraith, 186 111. 593, 58 N. E. 431 [affirming, 87 111. App. 63].

9 Moye v. Lane (Ky.), 12 S. W. 154; Eberle v. Heaton, 124 Mich. 205, 82 N. W. 820.

l0Manogue v. Bryant, 15 D. C. App. 245.

A line of the boundary may be omitted. Rix v. Peters, 135 Ark. 193, 204 S. W. 845.

11Hataway v. Carnley, - Ala. - , 73 So. 382.

12Blakeman v. Blakeman, 39 Conn. 320; Schautz v. Keener, 87 Ind. 258; Howard v. Britton, 67 N. H. 484, 41 Atl. 269.

13 State v. Lorenz, 22 Wash. 289, 60 Pac. 644.

14 Fero v. Lumber Co., 101 Mich. 310, 59 N. W. 603; Smith v. Wakeman, 114 Mich. 611, 72 N W. 599

15Cook v. Liston, 192 Pa. St. 19, 43 Atl. 389.

16Warrick v. Smith, 137 111. 504, 27 N. E. 709; Hendrickson v. Ivins, 1 N. J. Eq. 662.

17 Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290.

18 First State Bank v. Jones, 107 Tex. 623, 183 S. W. 874; Kane v. Williams, 99 Wis. 65, 74 N. W. 570.

19 Cox v. Hall, 54 Mont. 154, 168 Pac. 519.

1 Stedwell v. Anderson, 21 Conn. 139; McLeod v. Free, 96 Mich. 57, 55 N. W. 685.

2Corrigan v. Tierney, 100 Mo. 276, 13 S. W. 401.

So where notes and stock to be transferred to A and B are transferred to B alone. Kropp v. Kropp, 97 Wis. 137, 72 N. W. 381.

3 Stone v. Hill, 17 Ala. 557, 52 Am. Dec. 185; Larkins v. Biddle, 21 Ala. 252.

4 Rosser v. Ry., 102 Ga. 164, 29 S. E. 171.