delivered the opinion of the court.
Hahn v. Easton, 199 Ill. App. 119 (1916)
April 17, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
199 Ill. App. 119
John C. Hahn and Amanda L. Hahn, Appellants, v. U. W. Easton, Appellee.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. William B. Wright, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 17, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Bill by John O. Hahn and Amanda L. Hahn, complainants, against U. W. Easton, defendant, for the reformation of a deed and to enjoin defendant from prosecuting a suit in covenant to recover damages for an alleged breach of warranty in the deed. From a judgment for defendant, complainants appeal.
E. D. Telford, for appellants.
*120Abstract of the Decision.
1. Reformation of instruments, § 12 * —when written instrument may be reformed on ground of mistake. In order to justify the reformation of a written instrument on the ground of mistake, it is necessary that the mistake should he a mutual one and should be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Reformation of instruments, § 47*—when evidence insufficient to warrant reformation of deed for mistake. On a bill to correct an alleged error of a scrivener in drafting a warranty deed by inserting the word “$4700” as the amount of the incumbrance instead of “$5400,” where the evidence was conflicting, and no mention of the incumbrance was made in the contract for exchange of properties, hut the scrivener testified that the provision relative-to incumbrances was inserted by him at the dictation of one of complainants and, as inserted, was correct, evidence held insufficient to warrant reformation of the deed on the ground of mistake.
William A. Mills, for appellee.