3

of a deed conveying land will not revest the title in the alienor, although done by mutual consent, and with a view to that object; nor will the surrender or redelivery of a deed by the grantee to the grantor with intent to cancel it. No alteration of a deed after the title has passed thereunder, by whomsoever made, or with whatever purpose, can revest the grantor with the title. But it has been held that the contents of a deed cannot be proved if the deed has been surrendered and destroyed by the party's own voluntary act or consent; and such surrender and destruction of an unrecorded deed may have the effect of divesting his title by estopping him from proving the contents.*

$2306. Reformation of Deeds and Other Instruments. -Where, by mistake, a deed or other instrument inter vivos is not what parties intended, or there is a mistake in it, other than a mistake in law, and the mistake is clearly made out by admissible and satisfactory evidence, or is admitted by the other side, or is evident from the nature of the case or from the rest of the deed, equity will rectify the mistake. A mistake will be corrected in a defective conveyance, whether it be in regard to a commonlaw or to a statutory requisite. So equity will relieve

Am. Dec. 783; Gugins v. Van Gorder, 10 Mich. 523; 82 Am. Dec. 55; Sutton v. Jervis, 31 Ind. 265; 99 Am. Dec. 631; Stapp v. Wilkinson, 80 Ala. 47.

Tibeau v. Tibeau, 19 Mo. 78; 59 Am. Dec. 329.

2 Lawton v. Gordon, 34 Cal. 36; 91 Am. Dec. 670; Taliaferro v. Rolton, 34 Ark. 503. But see Sawyer v. Peters, 50 N. H. 143.

comer v. Kline, 11 Gill & J. 457; 37 Am. Dec. 74; Willis v. Henderson, 4 Scam. 13; 38 Am. Dec. 120; Mosby v. Wall, 23 Miss. 81; 55 Am. Dec. 71; Leitensdorfer v. Delphy, 15 Mo. 160; 55 Am. Dec. 137; Greer v. Caldwell, 14 Ga. 207; 58 Am. Dec. 553; Dunham v. Chatham, 21 Tex. 231; 73 Am. Dec. 228; Price v. Cutts, 20 Ga. 142; 74 Am. Dec. 52; Thompson v. Marshall,

3 Alexander v. Hickox, 34 Mo. 496; 36 Ala. 504; 76 Am. Dec. 328; Nat. 86 Am. Dec. 118.

Speer v. Speer, 7 Ind. 178; 63 Am. Dec. 418.

"Snell's Equity, sec. 375; Pomeroy's Eq. Jur.. sec. 845; De Jarnett v. Cooper, 59 Cal. 703; Elliot v. Sockett, 108 U. S. 132; Aldridge v. Weems, 2 Gill & J. 36; 19 Am. Dec. 250; New

Fire Ins. Co. v. Crane, 16 Md. 260; 77 Am. Dec. 289; Smith v. Jordan, 13 Minn. 264; 97 Am. Dec. 232; Kilmer v. Smith, 77 N. Y. 226; 33 Am. Rep. 613; Turner v. Shaw, 9 Am. St. Rep. 319.

6

Beardsley v. Knight, 10 Vt. 185; 33 Am. Dec. 193.

against mistake of law in drawing an instrument so as to make it conform to the plain intention of the parties.' Where, through a mistake, a deed made bona fide, and for a valuable consideration, has been defectively executed, equity will decree that a new deed be executed. So where a deed has been lost, the execution of another will be decreed. So equity will reform a misdescription in a conveyance founded on a consideration, though the deed is a quitclaim, and contains no covenants. So equity has power to correct mistakes in wills.5

Equity has exercised jurisdiction to reform deeds and other instruments where void for patent ambiguity;" where, through mistake, the whole of the premises is conveyed upon trusts, when the intention was to convey only one portion on trusts, and the remainder in fee-simple;" where a commissioner of deeds, who, being a commissioner for two states, by mistake describes himself in his certificate of acknowledgment as commissioner of deeds for the wrong state; where a tract of land intended by parties to be included in a mortgage is omitted therefrom by mistake; where a party sells land according to a map as containing "fifteen acres, more or less," and in the deed describes the land according to the map, but is induced by the fraudulent representations of the grantee to alter the description so as to make it include an additional twenty-seven acres, the grantor being ignorant of the effect produced by the alteration; 10 where an attorney, in drawing a deed, by which a father conveys a life estate to his daughter, neglects to insert "for her sole and

separate benefit ";' where a deed is defectively executed.2 The power to reform instruments is exercised by courts of equity with great caution, and never unless a proper case is made by the pleadings.3 A written instrument will not be reformed, unless the evidence of mistake is clear and convincing.*

§ 2307. When Relief not Given. - Equity will not relieve when the mistake is not as to the contents of the instrument, but as to its legal effect;5 nor where neither fraud, mistake, nor surprise is proved, and the deed is such as the parties designed it to be; nor where the deed is voluntary; nor where it is illegal, or relates to an illegal matter; nor where the mistake was not mutual; nor where the mistake arose from negligence; nor where the correction is not asked for; nor where the complaining party has been guilty of laches. A grantor cannot

8

1 Stone v. Hale, 17 Ala. 557; 52 Am. Dec. 185.

2 Carter v. Champion, 8 Conn. 549; 21 Am. Dec. 695.

3 Stricker v. Tinkham, 35 Ga. 176; 89 Am. Dec. 280.

Hinton v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 63 Ala. 488; Sable v. Maloney, 48 Wis. 331; Sawyer v. Hovey, 3 Allen, 331; 81 Am. Dec. 659.

D Toops v. Snyder, 70 Ind. 554; Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 N. Y. 19; 51 Am. Dec. 333; Pierson v. Armstrong, 1 Iowa, 282; 63 Am. Dec. 440; Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427; 63 Am. Dec. 708; Jordan v. Stephens, 51 Me. 78; 81 Am. Dec. 556. As, for example, the mistake of the grantor as to the legal effect of the language used in the deed, if the language is such as he intended should be used: Burt v. Wilson, 28 Cal. 632; 87 Am. Dec. 142. A grantee who relies upon the recital in a deed of the number of acres conveyed as a guaranty of quantity thereby mistakes the legal effect of the instrument, and cannot obtain any relief upon that ground: Martin v. Hamlin, 18 Mich. 354; 100 Am. Dec. 181.

McElderry v. Shipley, 2 Md. 25; 56 Am. Dec. 703; Bradford v. Brad

11

10

9

ford, 54 N. H. 463; Story v. Conger, 36 N. Y. 673; 93 Am. Dec. 546.

Eaton v. Eaton, 15 Wis. 259; Petesch v Hambach, 48 Wis. 443; Powell v. Powell, 27 Ga. 36; 73 Am. Dec. 724. But the rule that a deed will not be reformed at the instance of mere volunteers does not apply to a dispute between two volunteers claiming under the same deed, when the grantor has no interest in the controversy: Adair v. McDonald, 42 Ga. 506.

8 Henkle v. Ins. Co., 1 Ves. Sr. 317; Petesch v. Hambach, 48 Wis. 443.

De Jarnatt v. Cooper, 59 Cal. 703. But when the actual grantor in a deed is merely a nominal party who has parted with his interest to other third persons, and the contract is in fact between them, and the mistake is mutual between the parties at interest, equity will correct a mistake, mutual as to the several parties, though the nominal actor has made no mistake, but merely did as he was directed: Murray v. Sells, 53 Ga. 257.

10 Brown v. Fagan, 71 Mo. 563; Toops v. Snyder, 70 Ind. 554.

"Gamble v. Daugherty, 71 Mo. 599. 12 Sable v. Maloney, 48 Wis. 331.

be required to execute a second deed, where one previously executed has been lost or destroyed while in the grantee's possession. A deed will not be reformed as to covenants therein, after an action for its breach has been brought against the defendants by the complainant, who suffered a recovery against him for costs.2

ILLUSTRATIONS.-P., being the owner of two lots, one occupied by him as a homestead, the other of little value, gave a mortgage in which his wife joined, intending to cover his homestead. By mistake, the deed described the other lot. P. having subsequently died, held, that there could be no reformation of the instrument: Petesch v. Hambach, 48 Wis. 443.

Hoddy v. Hoard, 2 Ind. 474; 54 Am. Dec. 456.

2 Ruffner v. McConnel, 17 Il. 212; 63 Am. Dec. 362.

§ 2309.

§ 2310.

§ 2311.

§ 2312.

Terms not included in final written contract not binding.
Written contract cannot be varied by extrinsic evidence.
Exceptions -To prove agreement.

§ 2317.

§ 2318.

Words to be construed according to their ordinary meaning.
General words restricted to things ejusdem generis.

§ 2308. Form of - Signing, etc. To bind a party to a written contract, it is not essential that his signature should be at the end of it. "If he writes his name in any part of the agreement, it may be taken as his signature, provided it was there written for the purpose of giving authenticity to the instrument, and thus operating as a signature." A note not signed at the bottom of the instrument, but at the end of the last sentence but one, binds the signer. One may sign a contract with the English translation of his French name; or with his initials; or his signature may be affixed by procuration or adoption. A contract may bind both parties named therein, although signed only by one. Except when required by statute, a written contract need not state its consideration. At common law, all contracts not under seal are contracts by parol.

1 Fulshear v. Randon, 18 Tex. 275; 70 Am. Dec. 281; Steininger v. Hoch, 39 Pa. St. 263; 80 Am. Dec. 521.

2 Fulshear v. Randon, 18 Tex. 275; 70 Am. Dec. 281.

3 Augur v. Couture, 68 Me. 427. Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Denio, 471.

3