Mistake

An erroneous conception, conviction, or belief in respect to matter of either fact or law, arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence. See Story, Eq. Jur. § 110. 159 Iowa 529. That result of ignorance of law or fact which has misled a person to commit that which, if he had not been in error, he would not have done. Jeremy, Eq. Jur. bk. 2, pt. 2, p. 358. An erroneous mental condition, conception, or conviction induced by a misapprehension of the truth, without which the act complained of would not have taken place. 159 Iowa 529. Distinction between "mistake" and "ignorance," see "Ignorance."

In equity, some unintentional act, or omission or error, arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition or misplaced confidence. Mistake of fact: the result of ignorance of some fact which really exists, or of a belief in the existence of some fact which really does not exist. Mistake of law: the result of an erroneous conclusion as to the legal effect of facts of which the person has full knowledge.

Some unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposifion, or misplaced confidenée. Code Ga. § 8117; 1 Story, Eq. Jur, § 110. That result of ignorance of law or fact which has misled a person to commit that which, if he bad not been in error, he would not have done. Jeremy, Eq. Jur. 358. A mistake exists when a person, under some erroneous conviction of law or fact, does, or omits to do, some act which, but for the erreneous conviction, he would not have dene or omitted. It may arise either from unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, imposition, or misplaced confidence. Disph. Eg. § 185. Mistake af fact is a mistake not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person maxing the mistake, and consisting in (1) an upconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact, past or present, material to the contruct; or (2) belief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing which has not existed, Civil Code Cal. § 1577. A misicke of law bappens when a party, having Tull knowledge of the facts, comes to an erroneous conclusion as to their legaleffect. Itisa mistaken opinion or inference, arising from an imperfect or incorrect exercise of the judgment, upon facts ag they really are; and, like a correct opinion, which is law, necessarily presupposes that the person forming it is in full possession of them, The facta precede the law, and the true and false opinion alike imply an acquaintance with them. Neither can exist without iit. The one is the result of a eorrect application to them of legal principles, which every man is presumed to know, and is called “law;” the other, the result of a faulty application, and is called a “mistake of law.” 12 Wis. 124. Mutual mistake is where the parties have a common intention, but it is induced by a common or mutual 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.

There is a large body of decisions upon the extent and limits of the power of courts of equity to grant relief in cases of mistake; they, however, do not change the meaning of the word from its vernacular one of an error, an act done in ignorance, a misconception. The true bearing of the decisions mentioned is, not that the word mistake has any peculiar meaning in equity jurisprudence, but that only a limited class or kind of mistakes are subjects of equitable relief. Likewise, in criminal law, proof that an act apparently a violation of law was done under influence of a mistake may excuse the perpetrator from punishment; for it disproves any criminal intent. The course of decisions on this subject do not, properly considered, assign any technical meaning to mistake, but limit the character of the mistake which will exempt from punishment. Generally speaking, the mistake which entitles a person to relief in equity or to excuse from penalties is some mistake of fact; error as to the law is not regarded.