Case Name: W. L. Carwile, Appellee, v. Ira M. Cobe, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1918-03-25
Citations: 210 Ill. App. 167
Docket Number: Gen. No. 23,766
Parties: W. L. Carwile, Appellee, v. Ira M. Cobe, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 167–167

Head Matter:
W. L. Carwile, Appellee, v. Ira M. Cobe, Appellant.
Gen. No. 23,766.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Contracts, § 177 —presumption that written contract expresses intentions of parties. There is a strong presumption that when parties reduce their agreement to writing it expresses their intentions.
2. Contracts, § 177*—what proof necessary to overcome presumption that written agreement shows intentions of parties. To overcome the presumption that a written agreement contains the parties’ intentions, the proof must be clear and convincing.
3. Reformation of instruments, § 12*—when reformation of contract on ground of mistahe proper. A reformation of a contract for a mistake can only be had on the ground that the mistake was mutual, and the proof must he such as to leave no fair and reasonable doubt upon the mind that the instrument does not embody the final intention of the parties, but was executed under a common mistake and expresses what neither of the parties in-’ tended.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Opinion filed March 25, 1918.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
Statement of the Case.
Bill by W. L. Carwile, complainant, against Ira M. Cobe, defendant, for reformation of a contract. From a decree in favor of complainant for $10,000, defendant appeals.'
Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for appellant.
John B. Dandridge, for appellee; Charles M. Haet, of counsel.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Dever
delivered the opinion of the court.