15 McManus v. Fortescue [1907], 2 K. B. 1.

16 Stewart v. Ticonic National Bank, 104 Me. 578, 72 Atl. 741.

17 Marx v. Kilby Locomotive & Machine Works, 162 Ala. 295, 136 Am. St. Rep. 24, 50 So. 136.

18 Hannah v. Steinman, 159 Cal. 142, 112 Pac. 1094.

1 See Sec. 219, 221.

2 See Sec. 308 et seq. 3 See ch. XT.

4 See ch. XII.

5 United States. Cleaveland v. Richardson, 132 U. S. 318, 33 L. ed. 384; Hamblin v. Bishop, 41 Fed. 74; Barker v. Ry., 65 Fed. 460; Grannis v. Quin-tard, 69 Fed. 206; Dewey v. Whitney, 93 Fed. 533, 35 C. C. A. 414 [affirming 85 Fed. 325].

Alabama. Marx v. Kilby Locomotive & Machine Works, 162 Ala. 295, 136 Am. St. Rep. 24, 50 So. 136.

California. Schurtz v. Romer, 82 Cal. 474, 23 Ac. 118.

Illinois. McDonald v. Minnick, 147 III. 651, 35 N. E. 367; Williams v. Electric Co., 160 111. 526, 43 N. E. 595; Post v. Bank, 38 111. App. 259.

Indiana. City Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co; (Ind.), 52 N. E. 157; Smith v. Tewalt, 9 Ind. App. 646, 37 N. E. 294.

Iowa. Wood v. Stedwell, 91 la. 224, 59 N. W. 28; Bigelow v. Wilson, 99 la. 456, 68 N. W. 798; Kiburz v. Jacobs, 104 la. 580, 73 N. W. 1069; German Savings Bank v. Geneser, 116 la. 119, 89 N. W. 201.

Louisiana. Exchange Bank v. Williams, 120 La. 901, 45 So. 935; Citizen's Bank v. James, 26 La. Ann. 264.

Maine. Steward v. Ticonic National Bank, 104 Me. 578, 72 Atl. 741.

Massachusetts. Bridgewater Iron Co. v. Ins. Co., 134 Mass. 433; Hecht v. Batcheller, 147 Mass. 335, 9 Am. St. Rep. 708, 17 N. E. 651; Cavanagh v. Tyson, Weare & Marshall Co., 227 Mass. 437, 116 N. E. 818.

. Michigan. Miller v. Brooks, 109 Mich. 174, 66 N. W. 1092.

Minnesota, Grinnell v. Wisconsin, etc., Co., 47 Minn. 569, 50 N. W. 891; Haeg v. Haeg, 53 Minn. 33; 55 N. W. 1114.

Missouri. Schields v. Hickey, 26 Mo. App. 194.

Nebraska. Moore v. Scott, 47 Neb. 346, 66 N. W. 441; Brong v. Spence, 56 Neb. 638, 77 N. W. 54.

New York. Stettheimer v. Killip, ?5 N. Y. 282.

North Carolina. White v. Ry., 110 N. Car. 456, 15 S. E. 197.

Noith Dakota. Plymouth Township v. Klug, 26 N. D. 607, 145 N. W. 130.

Ohio. Goldsmith v. Cincinnati, 14 Ohio C. C. 342.

Pennsylvania, Gormly v. Gormly, 130 Pa. St. 467, 18 Atl. 727; Seeley v. Traction Co., 179 Pa. St. 334, 36 Atl. 229.

South Carolina. Pickett v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 60 S. Car. 477, 38 S. E. 160, 629.

Tennessee. Ruohs v. Bank, 94 Tenn. 57, 28 S. W. 303; Gholson v. Finney (Tenn. Ch. App.), 46 S. W. 345.

Texas. Houston, etc., Ry. v. Mc-Carty, 94 Tex. 298, 53 L. R. A. 507, 60 S. W. 420 [reversing 21 ^ex. Civ.

App. 568, 54 S. W. 421]; Cough ran v. Alderete (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 109; Adams v. Pardue (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 1015.

Wisconsin. Wood v. Boyn ton, 64 Wis. 265, 54 Am. Rep. 610, 25 N. W. 42; Kowalke v. Light Co., 103 Wis. 472, 74 Am. St. Rep. 877, 79 N. W. ?62; to the same effect see Hope v. Walter [1899], 1 Ch. 879.

"There are many extrinsic facta surrounding every business transaction which have an important bearing and influence upon its results. Some of them are generally unknown to one or both of the parties, and, if known, might have prevented the transaction. In such cases, if a court of equity could intervene and grant relief, because a party was mistaken as to such a fact which would have prevented him from entering into the transaction if he had known the truth, there would be such uncertainty and instability in contracts as to lead to much embarrassment. As to all such facts, a party must rely upon his own circumspection, examination and inquiry; and, if not imposed upon or defrauded, he must be held to his contract." Dambmann v. Schulting, 75 N. Y. 55 (64) [quoted in Cogswell v. Boston & Maine R. R., - N. H. - , 101 Atl. 145].

6 Cavanagh v. Tyson, Weare & Marshall Co., 227 Mass. 437, 116 N. E. 818.

"Upon the facts the question presented is whether the erroneous belief of the plaintiff and the defendant is a mutual mistake of fact of sufficient importance to make the contracts void. Such result can follow only when the mistake relates to a fact which is of the very essence of the contract, the material element in the minds of both parties, and material in the sense that it is one of the things contracted about. Long v. Inhabitants of Athol, 196 Mass. 497; Miles v. Stevens, 3 Pa. St. 21, 45 Am. Dec 631, note; Steinmeyer v. Schroeppel, 226 111. 9; 117 Am. St Rep. 233, note.

"In the case at bar the character of the fill through which the piles were to be driven was of importance only in the determination of the price to be demanded and paid for the performance of the work. Had the burden of performance proved less than anticipated, it scarcely will be claimed that the defendant could in an appropriate action have had relief from the contract through rescission or to recover any excess in payment over reasonable compensation. Yet, such would be the defendant's right if the contract were void ab initio. Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568. In the case at bar the mistake of fact is collateral to the essential thing contracted about and therefore does not invalidate the contract. Hecht v. Batch -eller, 147 Mass. 335; see Long v Athol, supra; Rowe v. Peabody, 207 Mass. 226; Young v. Holyoke, 225 Mass. 140; Winston v. Pittsfield, 221 Mass. 356." Cavanagh v. Tyson, Weare & Marshall Co., 227 Mass. 437, 116 N. E. 818.

7 "A mere erroneous impression in regard to a collateral matter affecting the value of the land is not a mistake justifying the interposition of a court of equity." Moore v. Scott, 47 Neb. 346 (353), 66 X. W. 441.

"Ignorance of fact which, if known, would have prevented making or altered terms of an agreement, does not of itself authorize the rescission of an agreement." Cogswell v. Boston & Maine R. R., - X. H. - , 101 Atl 145.

8 "In a case where there is a mutual mistake of the parties as to the subject-matter of the contract or the price or terms going to show the want of a consensus ad idem, without which no contract can arise, such a defense can be made. But here the mistake of the defendants was in relation to a fact wholly collateral and not affecting the essence of the contract itself. The vendees can not escape from the obligation of their contract because they have been mistaken or disappointed in the quality of the article purchased." Wheat v. Cross, 31 Md. 99, 104, 1 Am. Rep. 28.

9 Smith v. Hughes, L. R. 6 Q. B. 507. 10 Citizens' Bank v. James, 26 La.

Ann. 264; Moore v. Scott, 47 Neb. 346, 60 N. W. 441; Crist v. Dice, 18 0. S. 536.

11 The fact that it has been a disorderly house is not ground for refusing specific performance. Hope v. Walter [1899], 1 Ch. 879.

12 Hunter v. Goudy, 1 Ohio 449.

13 Wheat v. Cross, 31 Md. 99, 1 Am. Rep. 28k

14 Schurtz v. Romer, 82 Cak 474; 23 Ac. 118.

Stettheimcr v. Killip, 75 N". Y. 282. (A case where the bookkeeper in making a statement of the assets of theft rm included the balances of the individual partners on deposit as a part of the firm's assets, making a difference of some thirty-five thousand dollars. Before the sale was made, however, the accuracy of this statement was challenged, and the partners selling out refused to deal except oir that basis.)

15 Smith v. Tewalt, 9 Ind. App. 646, 37 N. E. 294.

16 Chanter v. Hopkins, 4 M. & W. 399.

17 Hecht v. Batcheller, 147 Mass. 335, 9 Am. St. Rep. 708, 17 N. E. 651.

18 Day v. Kinney, 131 Mass. 37.

19 Ruohs v. Bank, 94 Tenn. 57, 28 S. W. 303.

20 Sankey v. Bank, 78 Pa. St. 48.

21 Adams v. Pardue (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 1015.

22 Sample v. Bridgfortli, 72 Miss. 293, 16 So. 876.

23 64 Wis. 265, 54 Am. Rep. 610, 25 N. W. 42.

24 Brong v. Spence, 56 Neb. 638, 7? N. W. 54.

25 Kiburz v. Jacobs, 104 la. 580, 73 N. W. 1069.

26 Plymouth Township v. Klug, 26 N. D. 607, 145 N. W. 130.

27 Wood v. Stedwell, 91 la. 224, 59 N. W. 28.

28 Ghoteon v. Finney (Tenn. Ch. App.), 46 8. W. 345.

29 Milter v. Brooks, 109 Mien. 174, 66 N. W. 1092.

30 Goldsmith y. Cincinnati, 14 Ohio C. C. 342. (A third person in reliance on A's promise to pay had released liens.)

31 Cavanagh v. Tyson, Weare & Marshall Co., 227 Mass. 437, 116 N. E. 818.

32 Williams v. Electric Co., 160 111. 526, 43 N. E. 595.

33 Grannis v. Quintard, 69 Fed. 206.

34 Moore v. Scott, 47 Neb. 346, 66 N. W. 441; Crist v. Dice, 18 0. S. 536.

35 Hand v. Power Co., 167 N. Y. 142, 60 N. E. 425. (Decided by a divided court.)