T. Arnold Ward Et Al. v. Ray C. Lyman

[1] The jurisdiction of a court of equity to reform a written instrument upon the ground of mistake will be exercised only when the mistake is established by evidence so strong and conclusive as to place it beyond reasonable doubt. Pennock v. Goodrich, 102 Vt. 68, 72, 146 Atl. 1; Exrs. of Judevines Est. v. Trustees of Caledonia County Grammar School, 93 Vt. 220, 231, 106 Atl. 836; Fife & Child v. Cate, 84 Vt. 45, 47, 77 Atl. 947; Fairbanks v. Harvey, 83 Vt. 283, 285, 75 Atl. 268; Fuller v. Knapp, 82 Vt. 166, 168, 72 Vt. 688; Shattuck v. Gay, 45 Vt. 87, 90. In Bailey v. Woodbury, 50 Vt. 166, 169, it is said that the proof must be "beyond any fair doubt"; in Preston v. Whitcomb, 17 Vt. 183, 188, and Griswold v. Smith, 10 Vt. 452, 455, "irrefragable"; in Goodell v. Field, 15 Vt. 448, 452, "clear and strong leaving no doubt"; in Lyman v. Little, 15 Vt. 576, 592, "clear and undoubted"; in Cleavland v. Burton, 11 Vt. 138, 139, "clear, satisfactory and conclusive"; in Barry v. Harris, 49 Vt. 392, 395, "of the strongest and most conclusive character"; in Abbott v. Flints Admr., 78 Vt. 274, 277, 62 Atl. 721, "clear and unequivocal." All these expressions are essentially the same in meaning.