Sec 209

When, however, a statute (e. g., the statute of frauds) requires for a certain kind of contract a particular mode of proof, a contract of this character cannot, in defiance of the statute, be proved, on the pretext of amending a contract not requiring such solemnities, in a way prohibited by the statute. An oral contract, for instance, to sell goods on delivery, which need not be in writing, cannot, by rectification, be turned into a valid unwritten contract to sell goods on time, when by statute the latter kind of contract is forbidden.4 This, however, does not prohibit the solving ambiguities in documents solemnized in conformity with the statute of frauds, or rectifying, under the statute, such documents in case mutual mistake of parties be clearly proved.5

Sec 210

A mistake that is obvious on the face of the document, will be rectified by construction by the court before whom the document is adduced. It is not necessary for this purpose that there should be a distinctive suit for rectification. The document will be read in the sense obviously intended.6 Thus the omission to fill a blank will be thus rectified when the context supplies the data;1 and a transparently erroneous substitution of one name for another will be corrected.2

Contract requiring distinct mode of proof cannot be inserted.

Obvious mistake may be rectified by context.

1 Eq. Jur., 12th ed. sec 157.

2 See Attorney General v. Sitwell, 1 Y. & C. 583.

3 Story, ut supra, citing Tucker v. Madden, 44 Me. 206; Shattuck v. Gay, 45 Vt. 87 ; Stockbridge Co. v. Hudson Co., 107 Mass. 290; Edmund's App., 59 Penn. St. 220; Coale v. Merryman, 35 Md. 382; Hileman v. Wright, 9 Ind. 126; Miner v. Hess, 47 111. 170. Whether a court of equity will decree specific performance of a rectified contract, see discussion in Story's Eq. Jur., 12th ed.

Sec 161.

4 Wh. on Ev. sec 854, 902, 1025.

5 Wh. on Ev. sec 901 ; Boulter in re, L. R. 4 C. D. 241.

6 Leake, 2d ed. 328; Wh. on Ev. sec 933, 1030; Manleverer v. Hawxby, 2 Wens. Saund. 78; Avery v. White, 1 Ld. Ray. 38 ; Way v. Hearne, 13 C. B. N. S. 292; Bird's Trusts in re, L. R. 3 C. D. 214; Loss v. Obry, 22 N. J. Eq. 52; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 23 N. J. Eq. 13; Barthell v. Roderick, 34 Iowa, 517 ; Exch. Bk. v. Russell, 50 Mo. 531; Moore v. Wingate, 53 Mo. 398.

Sec 211

The jurisdiction of rectification, as stated in the immediately preceding sections, is exercised only as to the parties to the agreement to be rectified. He who puts his name incautiously to a document which does not express his views, while he may obtain a rectification as against the other party by putting such party in statu quo, cannot divest the title of bona fide purchasers whom his laches have misled. And even supposing no laches are imputable to him, their equity, as innocent purchasers, is equal to his.3 But voluntary assignees and grantees or purchasers with notice stand in the same position as the party under whom they claim.4

Rectification not granted as to bona fide purchasers.

1 Supra, sec 204, 209 ; Langdon v. Goole, 3 Lev. 21; Young v. Smith, L. R. 1 Eq. 180; Burnside v. Way-inan, 49 Mis. 356 ; Exch. Bk. v. Russell, 50 Mo. 551.

2 Spyve v. Topham, 3 East, 115; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 H. L. C. 40; see Brown v. Gilman, 13 Mass. 158 ; Richardson v. Boynton, 12 Allen, 138.

3 Infra, sec 291, 347, 376 ; Story, Eq.

Jur. 12th ed. sec 165 ; Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, Ch. 1-87.

4 lb., citing Warrick v. Warrick, 3 Ath. 293; Adams v. Stevens, 49 Me. 362; White v. Wilson, 6 Blackf. 448; Burke v. Anderson, 40 Ga. 535 ; Stone v. Hale, 17 Ala. 564; Young v. Cason, 48 Mo. 259 ; and cases cited infra, sec 291.