Ignorance

The lack of knowledge. Ignorance is distinguishable from "error" or "mistake." Ignorance is want of knowledge; error is the nonconformity or opposition of ideas to the truth. Considered as a motive of actipns, ignorance differs but little from error. They are generally found together, and what is said of one is said of both. 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 108 et seq. See 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 567. (1) Ignorance of fact is the want of knowledge as to the fact in question. It would be an error resulting from ignorance of fact, if a man believed a certain woman to be unmarried and free, when, in fact, she was a married woman, and were he to marry her under that belief, he would not be criminally responsible. 6 Allen (Mass.) 591. Ignorance of the laws of a foreign government, or of another state, is ignorance of fact. 9 Pick. (Mass.) 112. See, for the difference between ignorance of law and ignorance of fact, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 112. (2) Ignorance of law consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know. The law forbids any marry such a woman, he would be ignorant of tho law, and if he married her he would commit an error as to a matter of law. How far a party is bound to fulfill a promise to pay, upon a supposed liability, and in ignorance of the law, see 12 East, 38; 2 Jac & W. 263; 5 Taunt. 143; 3 Barn. & C. 280; 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 512, 516; 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 166; 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 674; 4 Mass. 342; 7 Mass. 452, 488; 9 Pick. (Mass.) 112; 1 Bin. (Pa.) 27. Ignorance of law is.a passive state, and is distinguished from actual mistake of law. 7 Ga. 70. (3) Essential ignorance is ignorance in relation to some essential circumstance, so intimately connected with the matter in question, and which so influences the parties, that it induces them to act in the business. 2 Kent, Comm. 367. (4) Nonessential or accidental ignorance is that which has not of itself any necessary connection with the business in question, and which is not the true consideration for entering into the contract; as, if a man should marry a woman whom he believed to be rich, and she proved to be poor, this fact would not be essential, and the marriage would therefore be good. (5) Voluntary ignorance exists when a party might, by taking reasonable pains, have acquired the necessary knowledge. For example, every man might acquire a knowledge of the laws which have been promulgated. A neglect to become acquainted with them is therefore voluntary ignorance. Doctor & Stud. 1, 46; Plowd. 343. (6) Involuntary ignorance is that which does not proceed from choice, and which could not have been avoided by any means at the party's command, as of a law not yet promulgated.

The want or absence of knowledge. Ignorance of laze is want of knowledge or acquaintance With the laws of the land in so far as they apply to the act, relation, duty, or facts constituting or relating to the subjectmatter in hand. Ignorance is not a state of the mind in the sense in which sanity and insanity are. When the mind is ignorant of a fact, its condition still remains sound; the power of thinking, of judging, of willing, is justas complete before communication of the fact as after; the essence or texture, so to speak, of the mind, is not, as in the case of insanity, affected or impaired. Ignorance of a particular fact consists in this: that the mind,.although sound and capable of healthy action, has never acted upon the fact in question, because the subject has never been brought to the notice of the perceptive faculties. 28 N. J. Law, 274. “Tgnorance” and “error” are not converte ible terms. The former is a lack of information or absence of knowledge; the latter, a misapprehension or confusion of information, ora mistaken supposition of the possession of knowledge. Error as to a fact may imply ignorance of the truth; but ignorance does not necessarily imply error. Essential ignorance is ignorance in relation to some essential circumstance so intimately connected with the matter in question, and which so influences the parties, that it induces them to act in the business, Poth. Vente, nn. 8, 4; 2 Kent, Comm, 367, Non-essential or accidental ignorance is that which has not of itself any necessary counection with the business in question, and which is not the true consideration for entering into the contract. involuntary ignorance is that which does not proceed from choice, and which cannot be over come by the use of any means of knowledge known to a person and within his power; as the ignorance of alaw which has not yet been promulgated, Voluntary ignorance exists when a party might, by taking reasonable pains, have acquired the necessary knowledge. For example, every man might acquire a knowledge of the laws which have been promulgated. Doct. & Stud. 1, 46; Plowd. 343.

Want of knowledge or information, whether of a matter of fact or of a matter of law. See Illiterate. Ignorance of a particular fact consists in this, that the mind, capable of healthy action, has never acted upon the fact, because the subject has never been brought to the notice of the perceptive faculties.' Voluntary ignorance. Exists when one by reasonable exertion might have acquired knowledge. Involuntary ignorance doesnot proceed from choice; could not be overcome by the use of any known means. Ignorance of a fact sometimes excuses; ignorance of law, never. In the law of crimes, ignorance of a fact is regarded as a defect of will. It occurs where a man intending to do a lawful act does that which is unlawful: the deed and the will do not concur.' See Guilty. If ignorance of what one might know were admitted as an excuse, the laws would become of no effect.* See Prescribe. "If ignorance of the law was admitted as a ground of exemption, the courts would be involved in questions which it were scarcely possible to solve, and which would render the administration of justice next to impossible; for in almost every case ignorance would be alleged, and, for the purpose of determining the point, the court would be compelled to enter upon questions of facts insoluble and indeterminable." So, if a person will not read or does not know what he signs, or is misinformed as to the effect, he alone isresponsible.^ The maxim that " ignorance of the law excuses no one " is not universally applicable, but only when damages have been inflicted or crimes committed. ^ When parties have acted under a mutual mistake of law, and the party jeopardized can be relieved without substantial injustice to the other side, a court of equity will afford redress, especially if the one to be benefited by the mistake invokes the aid of equity to put him m a position where the mistake will become advantageous to him.' 1 Brown v. Kingsley, 38 Iowa, 221 (1874). "Boylan v. Meeker, 28 N. J. L. 279 (1860). s 4 BI. Com. 27. « 1 Bl. Com. 46. 'Upton V. Tribilcook, 91 U. S. 50-51 (1875), cases. Hunt, J. See also Hunt v. Rhodes, 1 Pet. 1, 13-lS (1828); 17 Cent. Law J. 422-37(1883), cases; 18 id. 7-10 (1884), cases; 2 Flip. 116; 3 Col. 555; 13111. 395; 60 Md. 335; 50 Mich. 551, 594; 23 Miss. 124; 76 Va. 315; 62 Wis. 332; 1 Johns. Ch. 515; 2 id. CO; 6 id. 170; Bisp. Eq. § 187; 1 Story, Eq. Ch. V; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. §§ 838-71. « Brock V. Weiss, 44 N. J. L- 244 (1882), cases. When a party in one State makes a contract with direct reference to the law of another State, he will be held to know the law Of the latter State.' See Law, Foreign. ' See also Estoppel; Ignorari; Inquiry, 1; Knowi/-