Lord Thankerton. -

In this appeal it became obvious that there was one crucial point, the decision of which might supersede consideration of any further points. Their Lordships wish to recall the essentials which have to be proved under S. 31, Specific Belief Act, 1877. The plaintiffs (the present respondents) must prove that it was through a mutual mistake of the parties that the three contracts in question did not truly express the intention of the parties; and the duty of the Court, before it can rectify, is to find it clearly proved that there has been mistake in framing the instrument, and it must ascertain the real intention of the parties in executing the instrument. On being satisfied of those two elements, it is in the discretion of the Court to grant rectification. In the present case it is unnecessary to consider the appellant-defendants' conduct or view vis-a-vis the question of mistake. The vital question in the appeal is whether the plaintiffs (the present respondents) have established that there was mistake on their part within the meaning of S. 31. Mr. Rewcastle, in a very frank and able statement, has admitted, and has rightly admitted, that the only person who coul