Affirming.

From a personal judgment against him of $1,500 with interest from May 19, 1923, an order for the sale of his half interest in three certain lots in satisfaction thereof, and the dismissal of his counterclaim, Iley B. Browning appeals.

On December 23, 1932, the Park Hill Realty Company accepted from Frank H. Yates a conveyance to it of his half of these lots and canceled his obligation on these last two notes.

On March 2, 1933, it sued Browning to collect the remainder due on them and thus obtained the judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted.

"For counterclaim defendant states at the time said lots were conveyed to said trustee, that by mutual mistake and oversight the notes sued on failed to recite or include the real contract and agreement entered into between plaintiff and the defendant, trustee. He states that * * * T.A. Field, Vice-president of said corporation, plaintiff herein, suggested * * * Iley B. Browning, be the trustee of an express trust, and conveyance be made to said trustee; * * * that said deed was then prepared conveying said lots to defendant, trustee; that * * * T.A. Field, acting for plaintiff, agreed with defendant that he sign said notes as trustee only and without personal liability; that the down payment with lien retained on the lots would be a satisfactory consideration to plaintiff for said deed without personal liability of this defendant; * * * that by mutual mistake and oversight, said notes failed to recite the real contract and agreement made at the time they were signed by the defendant, trustee. * * * Defendant says said notes sued on and filed with the petition herein should be reformed so as to conform to the real contract and agreement * * * made and entered into at the time said notes were signed by him as trustee, viz: that said notes should have recited 'secured and to be paid only by and from the said trust estate.' "

It will be observed Browning is asking the court to take three written contracts made and accepted by these parties (the deed and the two notes) twelve years ago and to write into them matter that will materially alter their terms, and then to determine their rights by these contracts as so reformed. If sufficient evidence be produced, a court may do such a thing; but the evidence must be so clear and convincing as to put the question beyond reasonable controversy. Clarke v. Salyersville National Bank, 260 Ky. 676, 86 S.W.2d 674. The evidence in this case does not meet that requirement.

Judgment affirmed.