Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/320

284 284 HARVARD LAW REVIEW The law on the subject, despite the increasingly x.liberal view taken by the majority of courts, is in a very unsatisfactory-; state. The rule is declared to exist in full force, yet so many arbitrary ex«peptions have been grafted on it that, in fact, nothing remains thereof, l^hus far, at least ten well-defined exceptions have been established, (i^) A mistake of foreign law has been dealt with practically everywhere, as-. a mistake of fact;^ and so, with a foreigner mistaking the law of the forum"/ (2) Pub- lic moneys erroneously disbursed are recoverable ; ^ (3) mone v paid to trustees or court officers under mistake may not be retained;® and (4) payments made under a void statute  or on reliance of a decisiou later overruled ^ must, in some jurisdictions, be returned. (5) Where a ciourt officer in administering a fund makes erroneous payments as between the beneficiaries, the court will allow -a set-off against future claims oi- will order repayment, as the case may require.^ (6) The courts have everywhere laid hold of an accompanying mistake of fact and have accorded the adequate remedy;^ (7) and likewise with an equity present in the case, such as fraud," superior knowledge of a party ,^2 or a fiduciary relationship.^^ (8) A mistake as to legal title or another antecedent right is a well-established exception in England and one growing in favor in this country.^^ (9) Where the parties in reducing an oral agree- ment to writing have failed to express the intent of all concerned through the technical use of language or otherwise, the courts have almost uni- versally granted reformation,^* though it is difficult to perceive why a 250 Pa. 304, 95 Atl. 462; Penn. Stave Co.'s Appeal, 225 Pa. 178, 73 Atl. 1107; Godwin V. Da Conturbia, 115 Md. 488, 80 Atl. 1016; Eiiler v. Schroeder, 112 Md. 155, 76 Atl. 164. But in Connecticut and Kentucky the distinction between a mistake of law and one of fact is disregarded both in equity and at law. Bronson v. Liebold, 87 Conn. 293, 87 Atl. 979; Park Bros. v. Blodgett and Clapp Co., 64 Conn. 28, 29 Atl. 133; Supreme Council Catholic Knights v. Fenwick, 169 Ky. 269, 183 S. W. 906; Blakemore v. Blake- more, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1619, 44 S. W. 96. N. J. L. 34, 44 Atl. 966. By statute in California a mistake of foreign law is a mistake of fact. Cal. Crv. Code, § 1579. Similarly in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Oklahoma. United States, 164 U. S. 190. Contra, People v. Foster, 133 111. 496, 23 N. E. 615. N. Y. Supp. 78. '' Spalding v. City of Lebanon, 156 Ky. 37, 160 S. W. 751. Contra, Yates v. Royal Ins. Co., 200 111. 202, 65 N. E. 726. V. Welty, 20 Cal. 637. 8 Finch V. Smith, [1915] 2 Ch. 96; In re Birkbeck, etc. Society, [1915] i Ch. 91; Hemphill v. Moody, 64 Ala. 468. ^° Freeman v. Curtis, 51 Me. 140; Ray & Thornton v. Bank of Kentucky, 3 B. Monroe (Ky.) 510. " Chelsea Nat. Bank v. Smith, 74 N. J. Eq. 275, 69 Atl. 533; ToUey v. Poteet, 62 W. Va. 231, 57 S. E. 811. ^ Moreland :;. Atchison, 19 Tex. 303; Jordan v. Stevens, 51 Me. 78. " Tompkins v. HoUister, 60 Mich. 470, 27 N. W. 651. " Cooper V. Phibbs, L. R. 2 Eng. & Ir. App. 149; Stoeckle v. Rosenheim, 10 Del. Ch. 195, 87 Atl. 1006; Burton v. Haden, 108 Va. 51, 60 S. E. 736; Mclntyre v. Casey, 182 S. W. 966 (Mo.). " Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260; Gross Construction Co. v. Hales, 37 Okla. 131,
 * Sampson ;;. Mudge, 13 Fed. 260; Rosenbaum v. U. S. Credit System Co., 64
 * Osincup V. Henthom, 89 Kan. 58, 130 Pac. 652.
 * State V. Young, 134 la. 505, no N. W. 292; Wisconsin & Central R. R. Co. v.
 * Ex parte James, L. R. 9 Ch. 609; GUlig v. Grant, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 596, 49
 * Centre School .Township v. State, 150 Ind. 168, 49 N. E. 961. Contra, Kenyon