
    VARINA D. CHESHIRE v. BEN JACKSON and MARGARET JACKSON.
    (Filed 22 February, 1933.)
    Limitation of Actions B b—
    A cause of action for tbe reformation of a deed for mutual mistake does not accrue until tbe mistake is discovered or should bave been discovered in tbe exercise of ordinary care. C. S., 441(9).
    Appeal by defendants from Parker, J., at December Term, 1932, of Chowan.
    No error.
    Tbis is an action to reform a deed by wbicb tbe plaintiff conveyed tbe land described therein to tbe defendants. Tbe deed was executed on 10 November, 1919.
    It is alleged in tbe complaint tbat by tbe mutual mistake of tbe parties tbe description in tbe deed includes land wbicb tbe plaintiff did not sell, and wbicb tbe defendants did not buy, and tbat tbe mistake was not discovered by tbe plaintiff until some time in August, 1931. Tbe plaintiff prays tbat tbe description in tbe deed be corrected, so tbat only tbe land wbicb tbe plaintiff sold, and wbicb tbe defendants bought, shall be included therein.
    Tbe allegations of tbe complaint with respect to tbe mutual mistake of tbe parties are denied in tbe answer. Tbe action was begun on 10 October, 1931. Tbe defendants in their answer plead tbe three-year statute of limitations in bar of plaintiff’s recovery.
    There was evidence at tbe trial sufficient to sustain tbe allegations of tbe complaint.
    Tbe issues submitted to tbe jury were answered in accordance with tbe contentions of tbe plaintiff.
    From judgment on tbe verdict, tbe defendants appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
    
      B. G. Holland for plaintiff.
    
    
      P. H. Bell for defendants.
    
   Per Curiam.

Tbe cause of action alleged in tbe complaint, and supported by the evidence at tbe trial, did not accrue until tbe mistake in tbe description of tbe land conveyed by tbe deed was discovered by tbe plaintiff, or at least until sucb.mistake should bave been discovered by ber in tbe exercise of ordinary care, C. S., 441(9), Sinclair v. Teal, 156 N. C., 458, 72 S. E., 487. Tbe statute of limitations did not begin to run against tbe plaintiff until some time in August, 1931. Tbe action was begun on 10 October, 1931.

There was no error in tbe refusal of tbe trial court to dismiss tbe action by judgment as of nonsuit. Tbe judgment is affirmed.

No error.  