Key

The plaintiffs sued the defendants to compel the repayment to them of $1,000 theretofore deposited as an advance payment on a purchase of real estate. The defendants filed an answer and a cross-complaint and were awarded a judgment on their cross-complaint. The plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment.

The parties signed a paper in words and figures as follows:

By their cross-complaint the defendants contended that the instrument above set forth did not express truly the contract as made by the parties and that the real contract made by the parties was as follows (the portions which were alleged to have been omitted by and through mistake are in italics):

The trial court made findings in which it specifically reformed the contract as the defendants claim the contract should have been worded and thereupon it rendered a judgment enforcing the same.

The appellants contend that the contract was one that fell within the statute of frauds and that oral testi mony should not have been permitted to alter the same. The general rule is as appellants contend, but as the defendants had interposed a cross-complaint based on the ground of mistake, although the contract in question fell…