Cited by

The Guernsey case was specifically overruled on that point in Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232, 240 , , where this court announced that “The true rule is that equity will not reform an instrument on the ground of mistake unless the evidence is clear and convincing.” Mr. Justice Dibell speaking for this court in Hartigan v. Norwich Union Ind.

Coates v. Butler, 89 Minn. 220 , ; State ex rel.

Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 30 , , 5 A. S. R. 816; Rogers v. Castle, 51 Minn. 428 , ; Scofield v. Quinn, 54 Minn. 9 , ; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Lockwood v. Geier, 98 Minn. 317 , , ; Haley v. Sharon Township Mut.

Coates v. Butler, 89 Minn. 220 , .

Co. 147 Minn. 109 , ; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Hanley v. Hines, 176 Wis.

Sloan v. Becker, 34 Minn. 491 , ; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Young v. *51 Baker, 128 Minn. 398 , ; Mahoney v. Minnesota F. M. Ins.

Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Briggs v. Buzzell, 164 Minn. 116 , .

Co. 17 Minn. 83 (104); Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Massey v. Lindeni, 98 Minn. 133 , .

Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Teig v. Linster, 150 Minn. 111 , ; Pomeroy, Eq.

The rule applicable here is one stated in Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , , in these words: “If, however, the parties to an agreement, while in the process of reducing it to writing, fall into error, and the instrument, by means of a mistake of law, fails to express the contract which the parties actually entered into, equity will interfere, and grant the appropriate relief t

Co. of Hartford, 108 Minn. 31 , ; Barnum v. White, 128 Minn. *37 58 , , ), though not proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , , overruling Guernsey v. American Ins.

Co. 17 Minn. 83 (104), where it was held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required tO' sustain an action to reform a written contract on the ground of mistake, and it was said in Sloan v. Becker, supra, that “wherever the degree of proof required in cases like this is mentioned, the rule is stated the.same as in suits to reform instruments.” In Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , , the Guernsey case was overruled insofar as it established this rule of evidence in actions to' reform contracts,

232 ; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Pomeroy, Eq.

In the syllabus to State v. Butler, 89 Minn. 220 , , it is said: “Under a sale made pursuant to G. S. 1894, sections 1616, 1617, where the land forfeited'to the state is sold for less than prior tax judgments, penalties, and costs, the amount required to redeem from such sale is the sum paid by the purchaser, with interest, costs, and subsequent taxes Under the law as

Wall *209 v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Lloyd v. Simons, 97 Minn. 315 , .

See Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Benson v. Markoe, 37 Minn. 30 , , 5 Am.

Layman v. Minneapolis Realty Co., 60 Minn. 136 , ; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , .

Sanborn v. Eads, supra; Hayes v. Carroll, 74 Minn. 134 , ; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; 16 Cyc.

And see Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Reavis v. Reavis (C. C.) 103 Fed.

Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232 , ; Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Jones, 95 Minn. 127 , .

§ 200a; Comstock v. Comstock, 76 Minn. 396 , ; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232, 237 , ; Quimby v. Shearer, 56 Minn. 534, 539 , ; Marcotte v. Hartman, 46 Minn. 202 , ; Hawkins v. Hawkins, 50 Cal.

Co., 88 *245 Minn. 158 , ; State v. Butler, 89 Minn. 220 , .