Reformation requires mutual mistake.

- Equity will not reform a written contract on account of a mistake unless the mistake was one of both parties. Some particular mutual mistake and how it occurred must be alleged and plainly shown. Rawson v. Brosnan, 187 Ga. 624, 1 S.E.2d 423 (1939).

Equity in a proper case may reform a written contract because of fraud on one side and mistake on the other; a contract may also be reformed for a mistake of both parties, but the evidence must show that the mistake was mutual. Helton v. Shellnut, 186 Ga. 185, 197 S.E. 287 (1938).

A petition for reformation of a written contract will lie where by mistake of the draftsman and by oversight of the parties, the writing does not embody or fully express the real contract of the parties. McLoon v. McLoon, 220 Ga. 18, 136 S.E.2d 740 (1964).

Reformation as applied to a contract is a remedy cognizable in equity for the purpose of correcting an instrument so as to make it express the true intention of the parties, where from some cause, such as fraud, accident, or mistake it does not express such intention. The remedy is not available for the purpose of making a new and different contract for the parties, but is confined to establishment of the actual agreement. Deck v. Shields, 195 Ga. 697, 25 S.E.2d 514 (1943).

Although equity will not reform a written contract because of mistake as to the contents of the writing on the part of the complaining party, who is able to read but fails to do so, where no sufficient excuse appears as to why such party did not read the contract, such principle has not been extended to cases in which it is sought to reform written instruments on the ground of mutual mistake of fact. In all cases where the form of the conveyance or instrument is, by mutual mistake, contrary to the intention of the parties in their contract, equity will interfere to make it conform thereto. Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc. v. Strickland, 228 Ga. 430, 185 S.E.2d 923 (1971).

A mistake in reference to the description of land conveyed on the part of one grantee, acting on behalf of other grantees who were absent, is a mistake on the part of all of them; and where the same mistake was made by the grantor, there would be a mistake of all the parties, within the rule as to mutuality. Lifsey v. Mims, 193 Ga. 780, 20 S.E.2d 32 (1942).

The mere failure to discover a conflict between the terms of an oral contract as to what a policy of insurance is to contain and what it actually contains until after a loss occurs is a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining the truth of the issue, but such failure to discover the discrepancy will not bar the reformation of the contract as a matter of law. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 242 Ga. 176, 249 S.E.2d 588 (1978).

Insurance contracts are not immune to suits for reformation, even where the insurance company was acting through an agent whose actions may have been unauthorized. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 242 Ga. 176, 249 S.E.2d 588 (1978).

The failure of a party to read a contract which is not signed by that party, such as a policy of insurance, does not bar reformation as a matter of law. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 242 Ga. 176, 249 S.E.2d 588 (1978).

Evidence of mistake must be clear, decisive, etc.

- To authorize a verdict reforming a deed upon the ground of mutual mistake, the evidence, like the petition, should at least by inference show the particular mistake and illustrate how it occurred; and the evidence must be clear, unequivocal, and decisive as to the mistake. Helton v. Shellnut, 186 Ga. 185, 197 S.E. 287 (1938).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 27 Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, §§ 35, 39.

21A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Reformation of Instruments, § 2.

C.J.S.

- 30 C.J.S., Equity, § 44 et seq.

ALR.

- Mistake in lease as ground for relief, 26 A.L.R. 472.

Relief from contract of sale because of mistake as to amount of commodity which it calls for, 31 A.L.R. 384.

Right to reformation of contract or instrument as affected by intervening rights of third persons, 44 A.L.R. 78, 79 A.L.R.2d 1180.

Attempt to reform contract as election of remedies precluding action to enforce contract as written or vice versa, 49 A.L.R. 1513.

Right to reformation of conveyance as depending upon consideration, 69 A.L.R. 423, 128 A.L.R. 1299.

Mistaken belief that contract bound one's principal, and not himself personally, as ground for reformation, 71 A.L.R. 1307.

Reformation of memorandum relied upon to take an oral contract out of the statute of frauds, 73 A.L.R. 99.

Effect of alteration intended merely to correct mistake in instrument so as to conform it to original understanding, 73 A.L.R. 652.

Right of present claimant of title as against original or intermediate grantor to reformation to correct error in description common to conveyances in chain of title, 89 A.L.R. 1444.

Jurisdiction of court of law to avoid or reform release of claim for personal injuries on ground of mutual mistake, 96 A.L.R. 1144.

When does limitation or laches commence to run against suit to reform an instrument, 106 A.L.R. 1338.

Right of third person entitled to maintain an action at law on a contract between other parties, or to garnish indebtedness thereunder, to maintain a suit for its reformation, 112 A.L.R. 909.

Right of insurer to reformation of policy or other relief because of its own error, not due to misrepresentation by insured, in computing premiums, indemnity, or other benefits or options under policy, 125 A.L.R. 1058.

Reformation of instrument on ground of mutual mistake as to legal significance of the terms used, 135 A.L.R. 1452.

Reformation on ground of mutual mistake regarding character or extent of estate or title imported by language used in instrument, 141 A.L.R. 826.

Mistake by one party to contract as to identity of other party who acted in good faith, 147 A.L.R. 1171.

Mistake as to existence, practicability of removal, or amount of minerals as ground for relief from mineral lease, 163 A.L.R. 878.

Right, after foreclosure, to reformation on ground of erroneous description originating in mortgage, 172 A.L.R. 655.

Incontestable clause as applicable to suit to reform insurance policy, 7 A.L.R.2d 504.

Negligence in executing contract as affecting right to have it reformed, 81 A.L.R.2d 7.

Reformation of property insurance policy to correctly identify the person or interest insured, 25 A.L.R.3d 580.

Reformation of insurance policy to correctly identify risks and causes of loss, 32 A.L.R.3d 661.

Reformation of usurious contract, 74 A.L.R.3d 1239.