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.
- Sampson ;;. Mudge, 13 Fed. 260; Rosenbaum v. U. S. Credit System Co., 64
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.
- 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.
United States, 164 U. S. 190. Contra, People v. Foster, 133 111. 496, 23 N. E. 615.
- Ex parte James, L. R. 9 Ch. 609; GUlig v. Grant, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 596, 49
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.
- Centre School .Township v. State, 150 Ind. 168, 49 N. E. 961. Contra, Kenyon
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,
