EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT He objects to the doctrine that the obli gation is merely an implied term of the con tract and finds in the common form of policy .an express undertaking to contribute and "that this obligation if at any time implied was so only in so far as the other liabilities of the policy can be said to have arisen from a smaller implication. " For the earliest forms of these policies were extremely simple and the various expressed clauses grow out of ancient litigation as to the meaning of the •simpler form. <?UASI-CONTRACTS (Mistake of Law) "Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake •of Law" is discussed by Prof. Frederick C. Woodward, in the May Columbia Law Review (V. v, p. 366). He shows that the rule •originated in an error of the courts and is founded upon an improper translation of the maxim, Ignorantia juris non excused. He sub mits that there is no reason in justice, or public policy, which justifies the rule prevent ing recovery in case of mistake of law while it is allowed in case of mistake of fact. He shows that in Connecticut and Kentucky the original distinction has been persistently denied; that in England two comparatively recent cases in equity showed an inclination to disregard it; that in California, Missouri, and South Dakota and Georgia the rule has been modi fied by statute; that it has been frequently held not to apply to payments of public •officers or agents; that it has sometimes been stated broadly not to apply to any mistakes •of an agent; and that some courts have refused to apply it to mistakes of trustees or other officers of the court. Jurists have differed as to the true rule, and several of these suggestions are considered by the author. He favors the one advocated by Mr. Bigelow, namely, "that relief should be granted if neither at the time of the act nor in anticipa tion of it was there present in the mind of the actor a doubt as to the law." . . . "It is submitted, then, that this test of the jurisdiction to relieve from mistake is the true one in principle, and is adequately sup ported by authority. It is submitted that, while not opening as wide a door as some of the tests previously examined and rejected, it would prove as satisfactory in its application
377
to cases of money paid under mistake of law as it has already proved in its application to other cases of mistake of law, and to cases of mistake of fact. Finally, it is respectfully urged upon our courts and legislatures that without abrogat ing the present rule denying the recovery of money paid under mistake of law, but by confin ing its application to cases in which the money appears to have been paid with the conscious ness of a doubt as to the law, the hardship of the rule will be minimized if not entirely eliminated, and the whole law of relief from mistake placed upon a basis of sound and consistent policy." PARTNERSHIP (see Bankruptcy) PROCEDURE (Juries in India) A DISCUSSION of the use of juries in the courts of British India, by Satya Chandra Mukerji, in the Allahabad Law Journal (V. ii, p. 113), entitled "Trial by Jury and with the Aid of Assessors in the United Provinces," may be of interest to those who study the legal problems in our eastern possessions. In certain provinces and in certain restricted cases the jury has been introduced and the author, a native, urges its extension, though he admits that there have been some sur prising miscarriages of justice in cases where the injured party has been a native of India and the accused an European British subject, and the defendant has claimed his privilege to have a majority of the jurors Europeans. Where the jury is not permitted, two native assessors sit with the judge, but their opinion is not binding on him as is that of a jury. The author shows that while this system is theoretically good, it works very badly in practice, for the assessors are drawp from an ignorant class and usually simply follow the humor of the judge. PROPERTY TContingent Future Interests) IN the Law Quarterly Review for April (v. xxi, p. 11 8) Albert Martin Kales publishes a thought ful article entitled, "Contingent Future Inter ests After a Particular Estate of Freehold," in which he contends that "a recent line of Eng lish cases commencing with Letchmere v. Lloyd in 188 1 and concluding with Battie-Wrightson
