*1 general implying or even that to assess- limitations as imposed municipalities ments law local must (s) read into subsection of the Act in order to render appear- phrase “in constitutional. The manner” procedural ing (s) merely in subsection indicates municipality are forth in rules set the code of the local to be but does not dictate that the substantive followed, governing municipality con- law local must be charges trolling. governing The substantive law given by Authority rights an made is contained in the Legislature, parent body, to it em- powering Municipality Act. Authorities statute, light foregoing, conclude we germane litigation, of abutment is not to this improvement having Au- constructed been powers require thority assessment do not whose properties improvement. The assessed abut improved properties were benefited, the sewer line therefore not were accommodated assessable. affirmed.

Order Appellant, Insurance Bugen, York v. New Life

Company. *2 1962. Before April Mus- Argued C. Bell, J., Eagen JJ. Jones, Cohen, O’Brien, manno, William P. with him Hogan, J. Facken- Douglas ihal, and Hogan Teel and Scott, Faekenthal, McGiffert, appellant.

Edward J. him Fox, Jr., with Oldt & Ham- Fox, brook, appellee.

Opinion Mr. Justice 25, 1962: Eagen, September allegedly This is an action to the proceeds recover A due under the terms life contract. of a Mo- jury trial resulted a verdict for defendant. *3 vere- tions for a new non obstante judgment trial or judg- dicto the appeals were dismissed. Plaintiff from ment on the verdict. entered 14, on January died insured, Harry Laveton, the In the of death was possession 1960. his at time the named his uncle, which policy involved, insurance bore an the plaintiff herein, as ef- recited it was June but that issue date of 3, 1959, of December 8, as fective after plaintiff payment refused due full proceeds the eventually paid

demand, Its Laveton. widow, Polly to the insured’s thereunder name inserted plaintiff’s was the position was the mistake of one as the the legal intended and the real, employees of death the insured’s of the date as widow. n.o.v.

Judgment judgment the motion for merits of the resolving In whether determination is crucial the n.o.v., support sufficient to legally evidence had occurred that a mistake finding

475 draftsmanship policy. This is a law. We conclude that it was.

A court of has writ equity power to reform the ten correspond evidence make it to a contract and applies This understanding parties. principle to v. equal force contracts: Broida Travelers Insurance Pa. 175 A. 492 316 Company, 444, (1934). the mistake must be mutual However, Pa. parties contract: 24 Co., v. Fire Ins. Boyce Superior Ct. 589 York (1904); v. New Kaufman Life Ins. v. 315 Pa. 172 A. 306 Vrabel Co., (1934) ; 34, Parol evi (1952). 369 Pa. 85 A. 2d 858 Scholler, 235, dence admissible for the of show generally purpose is in reason of a written ing mutual that, by mistake, strument does not the intention truly express Mutual Fire Ins. parties: v. Protective Eilenberger Pa. 159 89 464 v. 306 Pa. (1879); Roesch, 435, Roberts A. 870 v. 315 Pa. (1932) ; Allinger and, Melvin, A. Pa. (1934); 403 Pellegrene Luther, 169 A. 2d (1961). terms reformation of warrant

However, of mutual mis- grounds of a written contract and of the the evidence must clear, convincing, take, in order to obtain character. satisfactory fact, most mis- of a contract because of mutual the reformation exist- required is show the moving party take, clear, mutual mistake evidence ence *4 Easton v. Wash. Ins. convincing: Co., and precise (1957) Pellegrene 2d ; Luther, 137 A. Pa. 28, established the evidence must be Furthermore, supra. or one witness and corroborating witnesses, two supra. v. Wash. Ins. Easton Co., circumstances, insurance did not first company fact, The terms of the con- insurance reformation seek is not in and does equity, controlling action in an tract to show existence of a mutual right defeat not action. In this instant Commonwealth, in the mistake com wherein in equitable principles are administered mon law reformation of in forms, equity a policy up mutual mistake is not action prerequisite a to an on it Litto 109 Pa. Su at law: v. Public Ins. Fire Co., Ct. v. Travelers perior 167 A. 603 Broida 195, (1933); Ins. supra; Restatement, Contracts, §507. review principles

With these let law us mind, the evidence. 8,

The on December originally was issued bene- 1927, naming uncle, insured’s as plaintiff, date It insured’s ficiary. inadvertently stated that September birth was in fact, whereas 23, 1905, married. was the insured September 23, 1930, form January On 6, change insured, filed company executed and with the bene- his naming change wife as on page policy. was endorsed seven ficiary named, plaintiff’s beneficiary originally as name, remained one thereof. page dis- agent company In the year discrepancy, of the date of birth covered existence in the six other involved, but also only He life. policies insurance carried on the insured’s con- financial possible out the insured the pointed collec- difficulties in connection and sequences He advised policies. tion of the proceeds returned and the six others, the policy involved, adjust- for correction and promptly over handed agreed personally The insured ment. policies company’s agent all of the insurance this purpose. change and limited sole requested. discussed contacted office local procedure to the necessary office as to effec- the home adjustment. The home office correction tuate signature forms for forwarded the in- prepared were returned to execution, they the home After sured. *5 in- with the and a of the office, together policies copy request- sured’s birth certificate. written forms These of ed the the date only policy corrected as to change birth stated therein. was said as to a Nothing of beneficiary.

As corrected records result, company’s the were of birth and the instead of correcting the date the sum on the adjusting principal due thereunder original issued a substitute or new which policy, policy was delivered June about, the insured on, This identical ex- original policy with the of the cept the date birth was conform changed correct the and the principal adjusted sum was facts, bene- endorsement the of the noting original change omitted. ficiary was mani- the office records of the addition, re-

fested that only change last of quested insured was that January 6, named beneficiary. wherein the insured’s wife was name request change written was ever filed to from that wife. terms The inter “Every change bene- provided, alia, notice to Company must be made written ficiary In- accompanied at its Home Office Policy thereon change Company, dorsement effect.” change indorsed the shall take unless so legally evidence was sufficient warrant This of mutual mistake submission judgment n.o.v. motion was, therefore, jury. overruled. correctly Trial

New refused the court complains plaintiff negligence the company’s charge fromit prevented in effect, draftsmanship policy, action. mutual mistake this defense raising validity merit. without This *6 contract was not involved. If elements all of the necessary the reformation contract a written are mere present, conduct on the one negligent part parties in thereto to failing discover the mistake will not bar in reformation prejudice absence of a of a violation positive legal 3 duty. Pomeroy’s See, Jur. Equity (5th The Law ed.) §856b; Goldin, in Insurance Yol. (2d §268; 1 Pennsylvania, ed.), Broida v. Travelers Ins. supra.

Appellant also argues charge the trial court’s was unfair and error. prejudicial to contained cannot A agree. We careful thereof is reading clearly convincing thorough. fair, accurate it is in de- asserted that Finally, argument counsel to the he an appeal fendant’s jury, engaged mistrial should passion prejudice to hence a and, been declared. a matter for the wise have This was Lumber & trial court: Contractors discretion Pa. A. 442 Co. v. 386 126 2d Supply Quinette, Rondinelli v. Pa. 180 2d ; A. Pittsburgh, (1956) of that discretion is evidenced (1962). abuse this record. affirmed.

Judgment Opinion Dissenting Cohen: Mr. Justice I trial. grant a new would re- solely defendant company The insurance acquitted if for the any. company sponsible error, proceeds to the wife responsibility paying its company to but the insurance insurance policy her, To to named responsibility also has to the named responsibility beneficiary, escape proceed required equity by be should company the contract. such an action to reform action required assume the burden of be would the burden and it would proof, forward going evi- required produce also a higher quality than it ac- required dence to defend an produce assumpsit. tion our action road of By here, pro- that seeks to resist the clear too of its of insurance is made much visions placed upon and the burden that we have easy, of a is much too named beneficiary heavy. Appellant, Zoning Board of French,

Adjustment. Before C. Argued May 2, 1962. J., Mtismanno, Bell, Eagen JJ. O’Brien, Jones, Cohen,

reargument refused November 2,