The right of one to recover, in an action at law, money paid in performance of a written contract which, because of a mutual mistake in its formation, does not express the intent of the parties and is therefore reformable in equity, was considered in the last section. If the contract is not in writing, it is clearly unnecessary to resort to equity; an action at law may be maintained to recover whatever has been paid in excess of the amount justly due.2 As was said in Sheffield v. Hamlin:3

"In a case of mistake in a written contract, the necessity for reforming the contract before seeking to enforce it according to the intent of the parties arises from the rule of evidence, that the written paper is to be treated as a full and correct exdesign to do so is apparent, effect should doubtless be given to the recital. But when the language of the deed, as in the present case, is< general, and the words used may have their full force, as descriptive of the land, we think they should not be construed to conclude the parties in regard to the terms of the contract."

1 Keener, "Quasi-Contracts," pp. 123, 124.

2 Norton v. Bohart, 1891, 105 Mo. 615; 16 S. W. 598; Sheffield v. Hamlin, 1882, 26 Hun (N. Y. Sup. Ct.) 237.

31882, 26 Hun (N. Y. Sup. Ct.) 237, 238.