The so-called parol evidence rule has no application in actions to reform a written contract,1 and extrinsic evidence is always admissible.

The burden on the issue of the existence of the mistake and of the actual agreement entered into between the parties is upon the party who claims the existence of the mistake.2 The existence of the instrument itself raises a presumption that it is valid and free from mistake 3 and fraud.4 The fact that the party against whom such relief is sought denies the existence of the mistake is not however, conclusive.1 If the existence of the mistake is conceded but estoppel is alleged, the burden of proof rests upon the party who alleges the estoppel.6 The amount of evidence necessary to entitle the party seeking reformation to the relief sought is variously stated. For the security of written transactions, it is always more than a mere preponderance. The evidence must be clearer than a mere preponderance necessarily is, to permit reformation.7 Even where it is said that a preponderance is necessary the context indicates that this means that less than a preponderance is insufficient, but that it does not mean that a mere preponderance is sufficient.8 The usual form of statement is that the evidence must be clear and convincing,9 though it is also said that it must be clear; 10 clear and satisfactory; 11 satisfactory; 12 full and satisfactory;13 full, clear and decisive;14 clear, unequivocal and decisive;l5 full, clear, unequivocal and amounting to a moral certainty;16 clear and precise;17 clear, precise and undubitable;18 clear and cogent, strong and convincing;l9 clear, positive and convincing;20 clear, unequivocal and convincing;21 clear, convincing and satisfactory;22 most clear and convincing;23 clear and most satisfactory;24 the clearest and most satisfactory evidence;25 the clearest, strongest and most irrefragable evidence;26 evidence as strong as if the mistake were admitted;27 evidence which leaves no rational doubt;28 evidence which is beyond a reasonable doubt,29 or evidence which is conclusive.30 In some jurisdictions, however, it is said that the requirement of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a requirement for reformation,31 and that such rule applies only in criminal law.32

As where such third person acquired non-negotiable mortgage notes after maturity from a party to the original transaction. San Jose Ranch Co. v. Water Co., 132 Cal. 582, 64 Pac. 1097.

8 Varner-Collins Hardware Co. v. New Milford Security Co., 49 Okla. 613, 153 Pac. 667.

Such as creditors. Michigan Buggy Co. v. Woodson, 59 Mo. App. 550.

Even if judgment creditors. Citizens' National Bank v. Judy, 146 Ind. 322, 43 N. E. 259.

A subsequent mortgagee whose mortgage is given to secure a preexisting indebtedness. Varner-Collins Hardware Co. v. New Milford Security Co., 49 Okla. 613, 153 Pac. 667.

A grantee without consideration. Kraushaar v. Hauk, 27 Or. 92, 39 Pac. 539.

A wife subsequently married by grantee, now claiming her dower. Hawkins v. Pearson, 96 Ala. 369, 11 So. 304.

9 Wright v. Bank (Tenn. Ch. App.), 60 S. W. 623.

1 See Sec. 2211.

2 United States. Bailey v. Lisle Manufacturing Co., 238 Fed. 257, 152 C. C. A. 3; Ackerlind v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 635.

Colorado. Gibbs v. Wallace, 58 Colo. 364, 147 Pac. 686.

Florida. Rosenthal v. First National Fire Insurance Co., - Fla. - , 77 So. 92.

Iowa. Noble v. Trump, 174 Ia. 320, 156 N. W. 376.

Kansas. Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co. v. Schalansky, 100 Kan. 562, 165 Pac. 289.

Louisiana. Metcalfe v. Green, 140 La. 950, 74 So. 261.

Maryland. Hopkins v. Neal, 128 Md. 251, 97 Atl. 436.

Massachusetts. Hayes v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 222 Mass. 382, 111 N. E. 168.

Nevada. Carey v. Clark, 40 Nev. 151, 161 Pac. 713.

Oregon. Manley v. Smith, 88 Or. 176, 171 Pac. 897; Furuset v. Aaby, 88 Or. 278, 170 Pac. 1180, 171 Pac. 1054; School District v. Hartong, 89 Or. 155, 173 Pac. 570; Peninsula Lumber Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co., - Or. - , 184 Pac. 662.

3 Ackerlind v. United States, 49 .Ct. Cl. 635; Gibbs v. Wallace, 58 Colo. 364, 147 Pac. 686; Hayes v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 222 Mass. 382, 111 N. E. 168.

4 Noble v. Trump, 174 Ia. 320, 156 N. W. 376.

5 Sills v. Ford, 171 N. Car. 733, 88 S. E. 636.

6 Inge v. Inge, 120 Va. 329, 91 S. E. 142.

See also, Ficks v. Purcell, 164 Wis. 596, 160 N. W. 1058.

7 United States. Goodno v. Hotch-kiss, 237 Fed. 686; Bailey v. Lisle Manufacturing Co., 238 Fed. 257, 152 C. C A. 3; Sun Co. v. Vinton Petroleum Co, 248 Fed. 023.

Alabama. Warren v. Crow, - Ala. - , 73 So. 989; Skidmore v. Stewart, - Ala. - , 75 So. 1.

Arkansas. Welch v. Welch, 132 Ark. 227, 200 S. W. 139; Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Wigginton, 134 Ark. 152, 203 S. W. 844.

California. Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers' Association, 175 Cal. 668, 166 Pac. 993.

Florida. Bexley v. High Springs Bank, - Fla. - , 74 So. 494; Baldwin v. Christopher, - Fla. - , 79 So. 339.

Georgia. Robertson v. Rigsby, 148 Ga. 81, 95 S. E. 973.

Illinois. Silurian Oil Co. v. Neal, 277 111. 45, 115 N. E. 114; Anderson v. Stewart, 281 111. 69, 117 N. E. 743.

Iowa. Haugh v. Lance, - Ia. - , 163 N. W. 204; Dare v. Foy, 180 Ia 1156, 164 N. W. 179.

Kentucky. Scott v. Spurr, 169 Ky. 575, 184 S. W. 866; Johnson v. Gad-berry, 174 Ky. 62, 191 S. W. 865; Van-over v. Justice, 174 Ky. 577, 192 S. W.

653. Minnesota. Mahonev v. Minnesota Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., 136 Minn. 34, 161 N. W. 217.

Missouri. Bartlett v. Brown, 121 Mo. 353, 25 S. W. 1108.

Iowa. Sauer v. Nehls, 121 Ia. 184, 96 N. W. 759.

New York. Allison Brothers' Co. v. Allison, 144 N. Y. 21, 38 N. E. 956.

Oklahoma. Burch v. Staples, - Okla. - , 174 Pac. 271.

Oregon. Bott v. Campbell, 82 Or. 468, 161 Pac. 955; Boardman v. Insurance Co., 84 Or. 60, 164 Pac. 558.

Washington. Conrads v. Green, 92 Wash. 269, 159 Pac. 102.

8 Manley v. Smith, 88 Or. 176, 171 Pac. 897; Peninsula Lumber Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co., - Or. - , 184 Pac. 562.

9 United States. Bowers v. Ins. Co , 68 Fed. 785.

California. Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers1 Association, 175 Cal. 668, 166 Pac. 993.

Illinois. Leuer v. Kunz, 274 111. 523, 113 N. E. 878; Silurian Oil Co. v. Neal, 277 111. 45, 115 N. E. 114.

Iowa. Haugh v. Lanz, - Ia. - , 163 N. W. 204.

Minnesota. Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 30, 5 Am. Ct. Rep. 816, 33 N. W. 38.

Missouri Hunter v. Patterson, 142 Mo. 310, 44 S. W. 250.

Oregon. Bott v. Campbell, 82 Or. 468, 161 Pac. 955; Boardman v. Insurance Co., 84 Or. 60, 164 Pac. 558.

Texas. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Wagner (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 8. W. 214.

Washington. Conrads v. Green, 02 Wash. 269, 159 Pac. 102.

10 Ackerlind v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 635; Skidmore v. Stewart, - Ala. - , 75 So. 1; Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Wigginton, 134 Ark. 152, 203 5. W. 844; Silurian Oil Co. v. Neal, 277 111. 45,115 N. E. 114.

11 United States. Baldwin v. Fence Co., 67 Fed. 853.

Arkansas. Welch v. Welch, 132 Ark. 227, 200 S. W. 139.

California. Hochstein v. Berghauser, 123 Cal. 681, 56 Pac. 547.

Florida. Rosenthal v. First National Fire Insurance Co., - Fla. - , 77 So. 92.

Michigan. Robertson v. Smith, 191 Mich. 660, 158 N. W. 207.

Wisconsin. Seeman v. Biemann, 108 Wis. 365, 84 N. W. 490.

"Clear proof" is the requisite in See-ley v. Baldwin, 185 111. 211, 56 N. E. 1075.

It is said that the facts must be "clearly proved" in New York Life Ins. Co. v. McMaster, 87 Fed. 63, 30

C.C.A. 532.

12 Ward v. Yorba, 123 Cal. 447, 56 Pac. 58.

13 Bexley v. High Springs Bank, 73 Fla. 422, 74 So. 494; Baldwin v. Christopher, - Fla. - , 79 So. 339.

14 Cross v. Bean, 81 Me.,525, 17 Atl. 710.

15 Robertson v. Rigsby, 148 Ga. 81, 95 S. E. 973 (under local statute).

16 Burch v. Staples, - Okla. - , 174 Pac. 271.

"Liggett v. Shira, 159 Pa. St. 350, 28 Atl. 218.

18Sanders v. Sharp, 153 Pa. St. 555, 25 Atl. 524.

19Foster v. Schmeer, 15 Or. 363, 15 Pac. 626.

20 Turner v. Shaw, 96 Mo. 22, 9 Am. St. Rep. 319, 8 S. W. 897.

21 Goodno v. Hotchkiss, 237 Fed. 686; Mahoney v. Minnesota Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., 136 Minn. 34, 161 N. W. 217.

22 Scott v. Spurr, 169 Ky. 575, 184 S. W. 866; Parchen v. Chessman, 53 Mont. 430, 164 Pac. 531; Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Wood, 50 Neb. 381, 69 N. W. 941.

23 Pickrell & Craig Co. v. Castleman-Blakemore Co., 174 Ky. 1, 191 S. W. 680; Vanover v. Justice, 174 Ky. 577, 192 S. W. 653; Clark v. Ry., 127 Mo. 255, 30 S. W. 121.

24Habbe v. Viele, 148 Ind. 116, 45 N. E. 783 [rehearing denied, 47 N. E. 1].

25Sun Co. v. Vinton Petroleum Co., 248 Fed. 623; Milligan v. Pleasants, 74 Md. 8, 21 Atl 693; Hollenback's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 322, 15 Atl. 616; Donaldson v. Levine, 93 Va. 472, 25 S. E. 641.

26 Ferring v. Fleischmann (Tenn. Ch. App.), 39 S. W. 19.

The application of these principles to given states of evidence results in the same divergence of opinion as the abstract statements of the principles themselves. The rule that the evidence must be clear, convincing and satisfactory is said to refer to the quality of the evidence rather than to its quantity;33 and, accordingly, reformation may be granted upon the evidence of a single witness, although the testimony of one or more witnesses is opposed to his testimony.34

27 Ford v. Joyce, 78 N. Y. 618.

28 Rowley v. Flannelly, 30 N. J. Eq. 613, 614 [quoted in Green v. Stone, 54 N. J. Eq. 387, 399; 55 Am. St. Rep. 577, 34 Atl 1099; reversing, 32 Atl. 706]; Hupsch v. Reach, 37 N. J. Eq. 657, 663.

29 United States. Bailey v. Lisle Manufacturing Co., 238 Fed. 257, 152

C.C.A.3.

Florida. Baldwin v. Christopher, - Fla. - , 79 So. 339.

Illinois. Lines v. Willey, 253 11). 440, 97 N. E. 843; Anderson v. Stewart, 281 111. 69, 117 N. E. 743.

Iowa. Dare v. Foy, 180 Ia. 1156, 164 N. W. 179.

Kentucky. Johnson v. Gadberry, 174 Ky. 62, 191 S. W. 865.

30 Warren v. Crow, - Ala. - , 73 So. 989.

31 Bowers v. Bennett, 30 Ida. 188, 164 Pac. 93.

32 Bowers v. Bennett, 30 Ida. 188, 164 Pac. 93.

33 Parchen v. Chessman, 53 Mont. 430, 164 Pac. 531.

34 Parchen v. Chessman, 53 Mont. 430, 164 Pac. 531.