Mistake

Some intentional act, or omission, or error, arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaped confidence. 1 When a person, under some erroneous conviction of law or fact, does, or omits to do, an act which but for the erroneous conviction he would not have done or omitted.2 That result of ignorance of law or of fact which has misled a person to commit that which if he had not been in error he would not have done.' An erroneous mental conception that influences the will and leads to action.4 The doing of an act under an erroneous conviction, which act, but for such conviction, would not have been done.s Mistake of fact. Takes place either when some fact which really exists is unknown, or some fact is supposed to exist which really does not exist. Mistake of law. When a person, having full knowledge of facts, comes to an erroneous conclusion as to their legal effect.^ Mistake of judgment. See Dikectors v Discretion; Sewer.

Mutual mistake

A mistake reciprocal and common to both parties; as, the parties to a contract when each alike labors under the same misconception with respect to its terms.' The rule is that a mistake of law affords no ground for relief, and that a mistake of fact may furnish such ground. In the latter case the fact must be material to the act or contract, that is, must be essential to its character, and an efficient cause of its concoction, and must also be such fact as the complainant could not by reasonable diligence get knowledge of, when put upon inquiry. When the fact is known to one party, and unknown to the other, the ground of relief is, not the mistake or ignorance of material facts alone, but the unconscientious advantage taken by the conceal- • 1 Story, Eq. § 110; Chicago, &c.

R. Co. v. Hay, 119 111. 504 (1887). > Bispham, Eq. § 185. > Bruse v. Nelson, 35 Iowa, 100 (1872): Jeremy. * West Portland Homestead Association v. Lownsdale, 17 F. R. 616 (1883), Deady, J., citing 3 Pom. Eq. » Cummins v. Bulgin, 37 N. J. E. 477 (1883),Van Fleet, Vice-chancellor. » Hurd D. Hall, 12 Wis. '124 (1860), Dixon, C. J. ment.

If the parties act fairly, one not being bound to communicate the facts to the other, a court of equity will not interfere, i To entitle a plaintiff to relief in equity the mistake must be clearly established." " We think that no case can be found where a court of equity has relieved a party on account of a mistake which was made thrdugh the mere carelessness and negligence of the party asking relief, where there rested a duty upon him toward the other party to use due care and diligence not to make a mistake." ' Kellef for a mistake of law cannot be granted in a Federal court.* i See furthel: Consensus, To Uit, etc.; Ignorance; Knowledse, 1; Mispkision, 2; Payment, Voluntary; Receipt; Recobd, S; Hbform; Rescission; Will, 2.