Opinion ID: 1911527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the decree reforming the policy a proper exercise of equity jurisdiction?

Text: Insured contends that equity should not give relief if the party alleging the same to be a mistake could by reasonable diligence have ascertained the real facts, citing Hunt v. Davis, 208 Miss. 710, 45 So.2d 350 (1950). In the Hunt case the mistake was not only unilateral; it was not in what mineral acreage Davis intended to convey, but the extent of his residual interest. This Court has recognized that prudent business men make many mistakes, and these mistakes are found under many forms under a variety of circumstances, but the limitations of the jurisdiction of equity to correct mutual mistake of fact are indeed few. Brimm v. McGee, 119 Miss. 52, 80 So. 379 (1919). In Smith v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, supra, the inadvertent error resulting in omitting ten acres of land from the description in a deed of trust was made by an agent of the Federal Land Bank, but the court sustained the prayer of the Federal Land Bank to reform the deed of trust so as to include the omitted ten acres. The error in the present case, as in Smith v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, supra, was inadvertent and was made by the party seeking reformation of the instrument. Insurance policies may be reformed as other contracts in a proper case. 43 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance § 356 (1969). In our opinion the facts of this case reveal a strong call on the power of equity to prevent injustice, and the chancellor's decree is in full accord with the equity jurisprudence of this state. Affirmed. RODGERS, JONES, BRADY and INZER, JJ., concur.