If the contract is one which is required by statute to be proved by writing, the attempt to reform such a contract in equity by the use of oral evidence presents a close and interesting question, on which there is a conflict of judicial opinion. On the one hand, It is felt by many courts that in view of the safeguards thrown about reformation by the amount of evidence required to obtain such relief, it would merely offer a shelter to fraud to deny reformation in such cases, fend accordingly reformation is allowed.1 A contract for the sale of land or of some interest therein may be reformed.2 Where by mistake an option of purchase is omitted from a lease, such option may be inserted by reformation.3 If a covenant on the part of a lessee to pay taxes upon the realty is omitted by mistake, such covenant may be added by reformation.4 A deed or mortgage may accordingly be reformed;5 and a mortgage may be reformed and foreclosed in one action.6 A guaranty may be reformed by oral evidence.7

10 Alabama. Tillis v. Smith, 108 Ala. 264, 19 So. 374.

California. Hayford v. Kocher, 65 Cal. 380, 4 Pac. 350; Savings & Loan Society v. Meeka, 66 Cal. 371, 5 Pac. 624; Stevens v. Holman, 112 Cal. 345,

53 Am. St. Rep. 216, 44 Pac. 670. Idaho. Christensen v. Hollingsworth,

6 Ida. 87, 53 Pac. 211.

Indiana. Hamar v. Medsker, 60 Ind. 413; Carper v. Munger, 62 Ind. 481; Collins v. Cornwall, 131 Ind. 20, 30 N. E. 796; Parish v. Camplin, 139 Ind. 1, 37 N. E. 607.

Kentucky. Tichenor v. Yankey, 89 Ky. 508, 12 S. W. 947.

Washington. Murdoch v. Leonard, 15 Wash. 142, 45 Pac. 751.

1 United States. Bradford v. Bank,

54 U. S. (13 How.) 57, 14 L. ed. 49. Alabama. Jones v. Johnston, 193

Ala. 265, 69 So. 427.

Illinois. Schwass v. Hershey, 125 111. 653, 18 N. E. 272; McGinnis v. Boyd, 279 111. 283, 116 N. E. 672.

Iowa. Welch v. Schlappi, 179 Ia. 474, 161 N. W. 442.

Kentucky. McMee v. Henry, 163 Ky. 729, 174 S. W. 746; Castleman-Blakemore Co. v. Pickrell & Craig Co., 163 Ky. 750, 174 S. W. 749.

Minnesota. Smith v. Jordan, 13 Minn. 264, 97 Am. Dec. 232.

Mississippi. Mosby v. Wall, 23 Miss. 81, 55 Am. Dec. 71.

New York. Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 585, 7 Am. Dec. 559.

North Dakota. Sigbert Awes Co. v. Haslam, 37 N. D. 122, 163 X. W. 265.

Ohio. Davenport v Sovil, 6 O. S 459.

Oklahoma. Atwood v. Mikeska, 29 Okla. 69, L. R. A. 1917A, 602, 115 Pac. 1011.

Pennsylvania. Caley v. R. R., 80 Pa. St. 363.

South Dakota. Hughes v. Payne, 22 S. D. 293, 117 N W. 363.

Vermont. Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220, 15 Am. St. Rep. 889, 17 Atl. 1075.

West Virginia. Fishack v. Ball, 34 W. Va. 644, 12 S. E. 856.

2 Consumers' Coal & Fuel Co. v. Yar-brough, 194 Ala. 482, 69 So. 897; Stromberg v. Alexander, 171 Ia. 707, 154 N. W. 414; Atwood v. Mikeska, 29 Okla. 69, L. R. A. 1917A, 602, 115 Pac. 1011.

In other jurisdictions it is felt that "in case of an executory agreement, first to reform, then to decree an execution of it, would be virtually to repeal the Statute of Frauds."8 Accordingly, reformation is denied.9 Thus in a contract for the sale of realty, reformation of a defective description has been denied.10 Reformation has been refused where it was sought to add the name of the city, county, and state to a description which consisted of a lot number and the name of a subdivision.11 A defective memorandum of a contract of suretyship can not be reformed by adding thereto the oral provisions which had not been reduced to writing.12 If reformation of a conveyance of realty can be given, as is often done,13 no good reason appears why reformation should be denied in case of executory contracts.

3 Butler v. Threlkeld, 117 Ia. 116, 90 N. \V. 684.

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

5Alabama. Tillis v. Smith, 108 Ala. 264, 19 So. 374; Jones v. Johnston, 193 Ala. 265, 69 So. 427; Consumers' Coal & Fuel Co. v. Yarbrough, 194 Ala. 482, 69 So. 897; Hataway v. Carnley, - Ala. - , 73 So. 382.

Arkansas. Fuller v. Hawkins, 60 Ark. 304, 30 S. W. 34; Rix v. Peters, 135 Ark. 193, 204 S. W. 845.

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

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

Iowa. Kinman v. Hill, - Ia. - , 156 N. W. 168.

Kentucky. Lamastus v. Morgan's Committee, 178 Ky. 805, 200 S. W. 32.

Louisiana. Frantom v. Nelson, 142 La. 850, 77 So. 767.

Missouri. Stephens v. Stephens (Mo.), 183 S.W. 572.

North Carolina. Maxwell v. Wayne National Bank, 175 N. Car. 180, 95 S. E. 147.

Oklahoma. Atwood v. Mikeska, 29 Okla. 69, L. R. A. 1917A, 602, 115 Pac. 1011.

Oregon. Webster v. Rogers, 87 Or. 547, 171 Pac. 197.

Wisconsin. Burmeister v. Olson, 102 Wis. 677, 79 N. W. 1127.

6 Christensen v. HolHngaworth, 6 Ida. 87. 06 Am. St. Rep. 256. 53 Pac. 211; fifth National Bank v. Pierce, 117 Mich. 376, 75 N. W. 1058.

7 Welch v. Schlappi, 179 Ia. 474, 161 N. W. 442.

8 Townshend v. Strangroom, 6 Ves. Jr. 328; Schwartzman v. Creveling, 85 N. J. Eq. 402, 96 Atl. 896.

9 England. Woollam v. Hearn. 7 Ves. Jr. 211; Attorney General v. Sitwell, 1 Younge & C. Ex. 559.

Connecticut Osborn v. Phelps, 19 Conn. 63, 48 Am. Dec. 133.

Idaho. Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Ida. 133, L. R. A. 1917A, 563, 100 Pac. 1052.

Maine. Elder v. Elder, 10 Me. 80, 25 Am. Dec. 205.

Massachusetts. Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24, 3 Am. Rep. 418.

Nevada. De Remer v. Anderson, 41 Nev. 287, 169 Pac. 737.

North Carolina. Davis v. Ely, 104 N. Car. 16, 17 Am. St. Rep. 667, 5 L. R. A. 810, 10 S. E. 138.

Oregon. Whiteaker v. Vanschoiack, 5 Or. 113.

Pennsylvania. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co., 234 Pa. St. 100, L. R. A. 1917A, 596, 83 Atl. 54.

Washington. Mead v. White, 53 Wash. 638, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1197, 102 Pac. 753.

10 Davis v. Ely, 104 N. Car. 16, 17 Am. St. Rep. 667, 5 L. R. A. 810, 10 S. E. 138; Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co., 234 Pa. Si, 100, L. R. A. 1917A, 596, 83 Atl. 54.