Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/321

285 RECENT CASES 285 court of equity should distinguish such a case from one where the written contract represents the agreement of the parties and the error occurs as to its legal efifect.^^ (10) Two states have succeeded in drawing a meta- physical distinction between mistake and ignorance of law, allowing re- lief in the former case only.^^ In all other cases — if any — the maxim remains intact. The continued lack of frankness on the part of the courts, obvious from the presence of this formidable array of exceptions, makes it clear that relief from the confusion can hardly be expected from that source. Nor are attempts by writers to provide criteria for reconciling old cases and for granting relief in new ones of much value. Such criteria have in the past been attempted,^* and those which have not been wholly dis- carded have served only to establish additional exceptions and thus to increase further the confusion. In fact, no criterion is possible, much less, desirable. It can result only in an effort to save the last vestige of a decrepit doctrine unsupportable on principle, and unjust in its opera- tion. Legislative action, abolishing the maxim and establishing a mis- take of law on an equal footing with one of fact, seems to be the only solution. Yet relief even from that source is unhoped for, if the judiciary adopts the attitude recently taken toward such legislation in Oklahoma.^® There the court, by construing statutes less narrowly, could have given them the effect of banishing the maxim entirely from its operation in civil cases, where it properly has no application; but instead, the court stood strictly on precedent and practically negatived the true purpose of the legislation.^" However, statutes more clearly defined in terms and scope than those thus far passed ^^ would make the recurrence of such judicial obstruction impossible. RECENT CASES Admiralty — Practice — Suit against Nonresident Enemy Alien. — A British company sued an Austrian corporation in personam in a United States admiralty court after England declared war on Austria. The defendant ap- peared and gave a bond releasing an attachment placed on one of its ships; but the District Court dismissed the libel, and by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the United States also had declared war on Austria, and had prohibited all intercourse with Austrian subjects. The supervening 129 Pac. 28; Good Milking Machine Co. v. GaUoway, 168 la. 550, 150 N. W. 710; Philippine Sugar, etc. Co. v. Philippine Islands, 247 U. S. 385. 1® See I Story, EQxnxY Jurisprudence, 13 ed., 113, note. " Cnlbreath v. Culbreath, 7 Ga. 64; Lawrence v. Beaubien, 2 Bailey (S. C), 623. 18 See Cooper v. Phibbs, supra; Kerr, Fraud and Mistake, 3 ed., 431; Story, Equity Jurisprudence, 13 ed., § 121, i L. Quart. Rev. 298; 17 Cent. L. Jour. 12; 18 Cent. L. Jour. 7; 2 Pomeroy, Equity, 3 ed., § 849; 5 Col. L. Rev. 366. 1' Campbell v. Newman, 51 Okla. 121, 151 Pac. 602. ^o But see Gregory v. Clabrough's Executors, 129 Cal. 475, 62 Pac. 72. The statutes in California and Oklahoma are the same, but the California court construed them as including recovery for money paid by mistake as well as reformation of contracts. 21 See Cal. Civil Code, § 1578; N. Dak. Crv. Code, 1913, § 5855; So. Dak. Civ. Code, § 1207; Okla. Rev. Laws, 1910, § 909; Mont. Rkv. Code, 1907, § 4984.