
    PETER PHILLIP, Respondent, v. JOSETTE GALLANT, Appellant.
    
      üontraat—misund&rstcmding of provisions of, try one party to — not sufficient to anoid it—What OMthorkes reformation of written instrument.
    
    The defendant, who did not understand English perfectly, was informed of the contents of a contract by a scrivener’s clerk, who was present at the time the contract was read and executed. In an action brought by the assignee of the other party, to recover the amount due on the contract, she set up as a defense that she had been misinformed as to the provisions of the contract. It appeared that the contract was carefully read over twice to the defendant, and was executed by the parties in good faith. Held, that the plaintiff was not responsible for the error or ignorance of the interpreter; that the defendant was in fault for trusting to an incompetent person to explain the agreement, and was not entitled to claim that there was no valid contract.
    To authorize a reformation of a written -instrument, solemnly executed, there must not only be a plain mistake, but it must be shown that the part omitted or inserted in the same, was omitted or inserted, contrary to the intention of the parties, and under a mutual mistake. 
    
    
      Beckwith <6 Bóbie, for the appellant.
    
      H. JE. Barnard, for the-respondent.
    
      
       Nevius v. Dunlap, 33 N. Y., 676.
    
   Opinion by Miller, P. J.

Present—Miller, P. J., Boardman and James, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  