1. 34 Cyc. p. 910; LaBlanch v. Perron, 209 Mich. 239; Clark v.

Johnson, 214 Mich. 578; Murussa v Temerowski, 204 Mich. 271. 2. Pomeroy's Equity Jur. 865.

Land Contracts.-Where a scrivener in drawing a land contract inadvertently included the whole lot instead of the east one-half, parol testimony was admissible to establish such mistake and such evidence is not open to the objection that it tends to vary a written contract by parol. Equity has jurisdiction to reform such an instrument and if the property has been sold at the time of the action and the rights of innocent, third parties have intervened, the court has authority to decree a lien on the unpaid purchase price due to the vendee from his assignee.3

It would also seem that if the purchase price had been fully paid to such vendee, then the court would have authority to enter a decree for damage in lieu of the decree for reformation.4

Where by a mutual mistake a land contract was executed, although the intent of the parties was merely to secure to the vendees therein an undivided one-half interest in the premises conveyed, they having advanced the money to make the purchase, a court of equity will correct the instrument so as to make it express the actual agreement.5

Before a land contract can be reformed to conform to the preliminary parol agreement which preceded it, the evidence of such preliminary agreement must be clear and convincing or relief by way of reformation will be denied.6

Where the word "heretofore" was inserted in a land contract providing for releases to the vendee on account of payments "heretofore made" was inserted through an error of the scrivener when the word "hereafter" was intended by both the parties, equity has authority to reform the instrument to express the true agreement of the parties.7

Where the description is defective and does not definitely define any land, the court has authority to reform the instrument so as to express the real agreement of the parties.8

3. Clark v. Johnson, 214 Mich. 577.

4. Murru8a v. Temerowski, 204 Mich. 271.

5. LaBlanch v. Perron, 209 Mich. 239.

6. Baxter v. Ogossbevits, 204 Mich. 249, 256.

7. Johnson v. Wilson, 11 Mich. 114.

8. Burt v. Klixby, 75 Mich. 311; Probett v. Walters, 70 Mich. 437; DeWitt v. Tyler, 49 Mich. 614.

Where by a mistake of the scivener, the name of the wrong person was inserted in the instrument, equity has authority to grant relief and reform the instrument so as to make it speak what the parties intend.9

Where lands have been platted, a description of the same may be corrected by the court of equity in an action to reform the plat.10

Also where a rate of interest has been erroneously entered.11

As well as where a sum has been wrongfully included in the consideration of an instrument.12

Where a parcel of land mutually intended to be included was omitted from a mortgage, by mutual mistake, equity will reform the instrument so as to include the omitted land.13

Equity will also grant relief and a contract for the sale of land will be reformed when the vendee, being illiterate, signed a contract providing for nearly double the agreed purchase price.14

And when in a land contract a reservation of the timber was inadvertently omitted, although agreed upon.15

Where words in an agreement have been omitted the instrument may be reformed to conform to the intention of the parties.16

Where a mistake has been made in fixing the boundary line of land and providing for a party wall, the agreement will be reformed in accordance with the actual understanding of the parties.17