(concurring specially).
The only issue presented by the appeal is whether the 1953 Ford was owned by the spouse of the named insured at the time of the accident. It was, unless the facts that it (a) was registered in the name of Frank’s Used Cars, and (b) was part of a stock acquired for sale in the husband’s business make a difference. In my opinion, the ownership of the vehicle by the husband could not be affected by the use of a business style or by the purpose for which the car was acquired.
A contract which does not express the intent of tibe parties can be reformed. See, Gartner v. Gartner, 246 Minn. 319, 74 N. W. (2d) 809; Mosiman v. Rapacz, 250 Minn. 464, 84 N. W. (2d) 898; Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. v. Onali (8 Cir.) 125 F. (2d) 580, affirming (D. Minn.) 43 F. Supp. 227. Even without reformation, a person damaged by reason of the ownership and maintenance of the vehicle may have rights against the insurer which will not be affected by this decision. Consequently, I do not believe that there are any considerations of public policy which compel the declaratory judgment sought by the plaintiff.