Davis v. Dockery, 209 N.C. 272, 183 S.E. 396; Furst v. Taylor, 204 N.C. 603, 169 S.E. 185; Thomas v. Gwyn, 131 N.C. 460, 42 S.E. 904. Frazier's contention that the burden of the issue was upon McCarter to satisfy the jury of the indebtedness and the amount thereof by clear, cogent and convincing evidence is without foundation. Henley v. Holt, 221 N.C. 274, 20 S.E.2d 62, relied on by Frazier, is not in point. In the trial below we find

On the other hand, if the action is to reform an instrument, the evidence must be clear, strong, cogent, and convincing. Walters v. Bridgers, 251 N.C. 289, 111 S.E.2d 176; Henley v. Holt, 221 N.C. 274, 20 S.E.2d 62; Ricks v. Brooks, 179 N.C. 204, 102 S.E. 207; Bolich v. Insurance Co., 206 N.C. 144, 173 S.E. 320. In Ricks v. Brooks, supra, it is said: "In an action for reformation it must be alleged and shown, by evidence clear, strong, and convincing, that the instrument sought to be corrected failed to express the true agreement of the parties, because of a mistake common to both parties, or because of the mistake of one party induced by the fraud or inequitable conduct of the other party, and that by reason of ignorance, mistake, fraud, or undue advantage something material has been inserted, or omitted, contrary to such agreement and the intention of the parties. Ray v. Patterson, 170 N.C. 226; Newton v. Clark, 174 N.C. 393.

It is only in respect to a few cases, "as where, for example, it is proposed to correct a mistake in a deed or other writing, to restore a lost deed, to convert a deed absolute on its face into a mortgage, to engraft a parol trust upon a legal estate, to impeach the probate of a married woman's deed, to establish a special or local custom, and generally to obtain relief against the apparent force and effect of a written instrument upon the ground of mutual mistake, or other similar cause, the evidence must be clear, strong and convincing." Waste Co. v. Henderson Brothers, 220 N.C. 438, 17 S.E.2d 519; Henley v. Holt, 221 N.C. 274, 20 S.E.2d 62. The instant case does not come within the exception to the general rule. See also Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, Sec. 213, p. 457.

The suggestion is without merit where proper instructions have been given. The issue in this form is not unusual, and we do not find it objectionable. Henley v. Holt, 221 N.C. 274, 20 S.E.2d 62. See Russell v. Wade, 146 N.C. 116, 118, 59 S.E. 345. See also Clinard v. Kernersville, 217 N.C. 686, 9 S.E.2d 381.