REFORM. To reorganize; to rearrange. Thus, the jury "shall be reformed by putting to and taking out of the persons so impan nelled." Stat. 3 Hen. VIII. c. 12; Bacon, Abr. Juries (A).
To reform an instrument in equity is to make a decree that a deed or other agree ment shall be made or construed as It was originally intended by the parties, when an error or mistake as to a fact has been com mitted. A contract has been reformed al though the party applying to the court was in the legal profession and he himself drew the contract, it appearing clear that it was framed so as to admit of a construction in consistent with the true agreement of the parties; 1 S. & S. 210; 3 Russ. 424. But a contract will not be reformed in consequence of an error of law; see 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 109; 1 Russ. & M. 418; 1 Chitty, Pr. 124; Clapp v. Hoffman, 159 Pa. 531, 28 Atl. 362; nor unless the mistake is mutual ; Steinberg v. Ins. Co., 49 Mo. App. 255; and only as between the original parties, or those claiming under them in priority, including purchasers with notice; Cross v. Bean, 81 Me. 525, 17 Atl. 710. Equity will not reform instruments which express an intention of the parties at the time they are made, based on the knowl edge then possessed by them, though their in tention would have been different if they had been better informed; Wise v. Brooks, 69 Miss. 891, 13 South. 836.
A person who seeks to rectify a deed on the ground of mistake must establish in the clearest and most satisfactory manner, that the alleged intention to which he desires it to be made conformable continued concur rently in the minds of all the parties down to the time of its execution ; and also must he able to show exactly and precisely the form to which the deed ought to be brought; 4 De G. & J. 265; Roberts v. Derby, 68 Hun, k99, 23 N. Y. Supp. 34; Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 12 Sup. Ct. 239, 35 L. Ed. 1063. Before commencing an ac tion to reform a deed a demand must be made on the grantee; Popijoy v. Miller, 133 Ind. 19, 32 N. E. 713. Where the mistake has been on one side only, the utmost that the party desiring relief can obtain is rescis sion, not reformation ; Ad. Eq. 171; Bellows v. Stone, 14 N. H. 175. But if there is mis take on one side and fraud on the other, there is a case for reformation ; Welles v.
Yates, 44 N. Y. 525 ; Bisph. Eq. § 469; Sim mons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 12 Sup. Ct. 239, 35 L. Ed. 1063.
A. lease will not be refornied in equity, so as to make it conform to another lease, where both leases have the same legal ef fect, as judicially construed ; Liggett v. Shire, 159 Pa. 350, 28 Atl. 218.
Where a deed does not express the inten tion of the parties at the time of its execu tion, equity will afford relief and decree a reformation ; Baldwin v. Fence Co., 73 Fed. 574, 19 C. C. A. 575, 39 U. S. App. 162.
A clerical mistake by one party at the time of executing the contract, unknown to the other, for which the latter is not re sponsible, will be sufficient ground for such relief and decree ; Trenton T. C. Co. v. Shin gle Co., 80 Fed. 46.
Where a policy of insurance was issued to a receiver of property, there being a con test as to the title to the property held by the receiver, the real owner, having estab lished his title, may have the policy reform ed, or, if the intent of the parties appears on its face, no reformation is necessary in order to enable the real owner to maintain an action on it; Steel v. Ins. Co., 51 Fed. 715, 2 C. C. A. 463, 7 U. S. App. 325.
The correction of a written instrument for fraud or mistake in its execution requires clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence ; LT. S. v. Budd, 144 U. S. 154, 12 Sup. Ct. 575, 36 L. Ed. 384. It will not be decreed against bona fide purchasers for value ; American Mtg. Co. of Scotland v. O'Harra, 56 Fed. 278, 5 C. C. A. 502, 15 U. S. App. 79.
Where a bid for certain public work con tained an error in the amount for which it was offered to do the work, and the bidder sought to rescind his offer, it was held that equity would not reform a written contract unless a mistake is proved to be the mistake of both parties, but may rescind and cancel a contract upon the ground of a mistake of one party as to facts material to the con tract; Moffett Co. v. Rochester, 82 Fed. 255.
Where a decree has been entered reform ing a contract, the contract as so reformed will be taken as the true agreement; Blair v. Implement Co., 87 Neb. 736, 128 N. W. 632.
See MISTAKE.