Opinion
January, 1918.
Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide event. Held, we are not satisfied that the defendants sustained the burden of proof to show that the contract was intended to include the garage and that it was omitted from the written contract by the mutual mistake of the parties. We, however, do not finally decide that question, but under the circumstances think the case should be retried before the judge who may have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses in court. All concurred.