Limitation of Actions—Equitable Belief Sought by Defendant— Bab of ’Statute.—The statute of limitations is applicable to an equitable cause of action asserted in his defense by a defendant against the plaintiff, just as it would be in ease the relief were sought by an independent action.

Id.-—Action fob Bent—Breach of Covenant not Included in Written Lease as Defense—Deformation of Instrument.— Where a lessee abandons the premises because the lessor fails to furnish water, claiming that it was understood at the time of the execution of the lease that the lessor should supply water but that by mutual mistake the covenant therefor was omitted from the written lease, and the lesssor sues on the lease to recover rent, the right of the lessee to have the lease reformed is governed by subdivision 4 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes a limitation of three years for actions “for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake.”

Id.—Mistake in Omitting Covenant From Lease—Running op Statute op Limitations-—Pleading.—The lessee's cause of action for reformation accrued upon the discovery of the facts constituting the mistake; and if he seeks such relief in his answer, it is not enough merely to allege that he did not discover the mistake' until within three years of the filing of the answer. A mere averment of ignorance of a fact which a party might with reasonable diligence have discovered is not enough to postpone the running of the statute; it is necessary for the party seeking to avoid the bar to affirmatively plead facts excusing the failure to make an earlier discovery of the mistake relied upon.

Id.—Excuse for Failure to Discover Mistake—Preparation op Lease by Lessor’s Attorney.—It is not a sufficient excuse for the lessee’s failure to discover that the lease did not contain the covenant to furnish water, that it was prepared by the lessor’s attorney. Id.—Mistake—Failure op Writing to Express Intention—Disregard op Erroneous Parts.—Whatever may be the real scope of section 1640 of the Civil 'Code, providing that “when through fraud, mistake, or accident, a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties, such intention is to be regarded, and the erroneous parts of the writing disregarded,” it cannot have the effect of authorizing a court, in the absence of a showing of a right of reformation, to find, upon oral testimony, that a written contract includes provisions which do not appear upon its face, and to enforce such provisions as a part of the written contract.

Id.—Reformation op -Contract—Time Within Which Relief May be Had.—The rule that an action for the reformation of a contract is not barred so long as an action on the contract itself may be brought, is not applicable to a case where the reformation sought in an answer is not merely incidental but is an essential prerequisite to the asking of any relief.