A  deed  for  lands,  after  it  has  been  deliberately  reduced  to  writing,  exe-
cuted, acknowledged,  and  recorded,  and  has  remained  unquestioned  for,
many  years,  should  not  be  disturbed  or  made  different  from  what  the
parties  made  it  on  any  feeble  or  inconclusive  evidence.
It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  a  court  should  even  attempt  to  reform  a.
deed  upon  verbal  testimony  alone  when  the  alleged  mistake  is  denied.
This  case  came  up  on  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the
Chancellor  dismissing  the  complainant's  bill.  The  opinion
of  the  Chancellor  will  be  found  in  2  Beasley,  p.  201,

It  was  argued  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  by

J.  Weartf  for  appellant.
A.  0.  Zabriakie,  for  respondents.
The  opinion  of  the  court  was  delivered  by

Van  Dyke,  J.  The  object  of  the  bill  in  this  case  is  to
reform  and  correct  an  alleged  mistake  in  the  description  of
a  lot  of  land,  situate  in  Jersey  City,  on  the  north  side  of
Newark  avenue,  and  on  the  west  side  of  Warren  street,  at
or  near  the  intersection  of  the  two  streets.  The  description
is  contained  in  a  deed  from  John  Van  Vorst  to  William  Du-
rant, dated  the  twelfth  day  of  October,  1830,  which  lot  of
land  is  now  owned  by  the  complainant.
