Where an instrument, by reason of a mistake of law, fails to express the contract which the parties actually entered

9. Schuler v. Bomander, 80 Mich. 531; Baylon v. Hanover Fire Insurance Co., 67 Mich. 179.

10. Gilbert v. Williams, 157 Mich. 226.

11. Fifth National Bank v. Pierce, 117 Mich. 376.

12. Gordon v. McGinnis, 92 Mich. 97.

13. Kimball v. Harrington, 91 Mich. 281.

14. Harrington v. Brewer, 56 Mich. 301.

15. Fero v. Loud & Sons Lbr. Co., 101 Mich. 310.

16. Osterhaut Lbr. Co. v. Rice, 93 Mich. 353.

17. Eberly v. Heaton, 124 Mich. 205.

into, equity will grant appropriate relief, which may be either by way of refusing to enforce the agreement or by cancellation or by reformation, to the same extent as in the failure of the writing to express the real contract was caused by a mistake of fact.18

While the principle is often laid down that a mistake of law, when standing alone, affords no ground for relief in equity,19 nevertheless when such mistakes are made concurrently with fraudulent representations as to the law made by the person with whom complainant has had confidential relations, or is combined with a mistake in matters of fact, or with feebleness of mind caused by sickness, or where the adverse party has been active in inducing the mistake, equity will afford relief.20

Sec. 200. Reformation Of Land Contracts - Evidence

The plaintiff in an action for the reformation of an instrument must establish that mistake has been made conclusively, and if the evidence is doubtful or is in conflict and not convincing, the bill of complaint will be dismissed.21