Subject to qualifications, hereafter considered, the statement is generally made that no relief will be given for a mistake of law unaccompanied with any mistake of fact,13 and especially, it is still generally held that money paid under a mistake of law cannot be recovered.14 But in Connecticut,15 and Kentucky,16 the courts have refused to draw the common distinction between mistakes of fact and of law, and have allowed relief for such mistakes of law as fall within the general principles allowing relief for mistake. The distinction seems also wholly abolished by the Civil Code of California,17 the provisions erf which have been copied in Montana,18 North Dakota,19 Oklar homa,20 and South Dakota.21 In the Georgia Code,21 it is provided that relief may be given in equity for mistake of law, and recovery of money paid is allowed on the same ground.23 On the other hand, it may be noted that the courts of Illinois u and Pennsylvania 25 go to an extreme in denying the generally received exceptions to the rule that a mistake purely of law justifies no relief.26

13 Bilbie v. Lumley, 2 East, 469; Gockerell v. Cholmeley, 1 Russ. & M. 418; Midland Q. W. R. Go. v. Johnson, 6 H. L. Cas. 798; Stewart v. Kennedy, L. R. 15 App. Cas. 108; Hunt v. Rousmanier's Adm'rs, 1 Pet. 1, 7 L. Ed. 27; Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32, 9 L. Ed. 989; Snell v. Atlantic F. & M. Ins. Co., 98 U. S. 85, 25 L. Ed. 52; Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260, 35 L. Ed. 678, 11 Sup. Ct. 972, 999; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. 498, aff'd in 127 U. S. 489, 32 L. Ed. 179, 8 Sup. Ct. 1192; Goodno v. Hotchkiss, 237 Fed. 686; Clark v. Hart, 57 Ala. 390; Stephenson v. Atlas Coal Co., 147 Ala. 432, 41 So. 301; Stein-feld v. Zeckendorf, 10 Ariz. 221, 86 Pac. 7; Louis Werner Sawmill Co. v. Sessoms, 120 Ark. 105, 179 S. W. 185; Gardner v. Watson, 170 Cal. 570, 150 Pac. 994; Porter v. Wright, 145 Ga. 787, 89 S. E. 838; Dinwiddle v. Self, 145 11I. 290, 33 N. E. 892; Baker v. Pierce, 197 11I. App. 158; Oiler v. Gard, 23 Ind. 212; Allen v. Anderson, 44 Ind. 395; Casady v. Woodbury County, 13 la. 113; Bach v. Inter-urban Ry. Co. (la.), 171 N. W. 723;

Stover v. Poole, 67 Me. 217; Carpenter v. Jones, 44 Md. 625; Konig v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 128 Md. 465, 97 Atl. 837; Sparks v. Pittman, 51 Miss. 511; Price v. Estill, 87 Mo. 378; Kleimann v. Gieselmann, 114 Mo. 437, 21 S. W. 796, 35 Am. St. Rep. 761; Hayes v. Stiger, 29 N. J. Eq. 196; Champlin v. Laytin, 18 Wend. 407, 31 Am. Dec. 382; Lyon v. Richmond, 2 Johns. Ch. 51; Morehead Bkg. Co. v. Morehead, 124 N. C. 622, 32 S. E. 967, affirming on motion for rehearing, 122 N. C. 318, 30 S. E. 331; Palmer v. Cully (Old.), 153 Pac. 154; Good v. Herr, 7 Watts & S. 253, 42 Am. Dec 236; Clark v. Lehigh & W. B. Coal Co., 250 Pa. 304, 95 Atl. 462; Norman v. Norman, 26 S. C. 41, 11 S. E. 1096; Farnsworth v. Dinsmore, 2 Swan, 38; Lott v. Kaiser, 61 Tex. 665; Scott v. Slaughter, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 524, 80 S. W. 643; Deseret Nat. Bank v. Dinwoodey, 17 Utah, 43, 53 Pac. 215; Tolley v. Poteet, 62 W. Va. 231, 57 S. E. 811; Beard v. Beard, 25 W. Va. 486, 52 Am. Rep. 219; Rochester 0. Alfred Bank, 13 Wis. 432, 433, 80 Am. Dec. 746.

14 Brisbane v. Dacres, 5 Taunt. 143; Henderson v. Folkestone Waterworks Co., 1 Times L. R. 329; Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, 153, 9 L. Ed. 373; Town Council of Cahaba v. Burnett, 34 Ala. 400; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Little Rock, etc., Co., 92 Ark. 306, 122 S. W. 994; Blackburn v. Texarkana etc. Co., 102 Ark. 152, 160, 143 S. W. 588; Brumagim v. TOtinghast, 18 Cal. 265, 79 Am. Dec 176; Wingerter v. San Francisco, 134 Cal. 547, 66 Pac. 730, 86 Am. St. Rep. 294; Elston v. Chicago, 40 11I. 514, 89 Am. Dec. 361; Town of Edinburg v. Hackney, 54 Ind. 83; Coburn v. Neal, 94 Me. 541, 48 Atl. 178; Alton v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Mass. 341, 32 N. E. 228, 18 L. R. A. 144, 34 Am. St. Rep. 285; Erkens v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 461, 40 N. W. 567; Needles p. Burk, 81 Mo. 569,51 Am. Rep. 251; Lamar Township v. City of Lamar, 261 Mo. 171, 186, 169 8. W. 12; Campbell v. Clark, 44 Mo. App. 249; Keasar v. Colebrook Nat. Bank, 75 N. H. 278, 73 Atl. 170; Clarke v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674; Flynn v. Bind, 118 N. Y. 19, 22 N. E. 1109; Belloff v. Dime Savings Bank, 118 N. Y. App. D. 20, 103 N. Y. S. 273, aff. 191 N. Y. 551, 85 N. E. 1106; Scott v. Ford, 45 Or. 531, 78 Pac. 742, 80 Pac. 809, 68 L. R. A. 469; Ege v. Koonts, 3 Pa. St. 109; Millard v.. Delaware Ac. R., 224 Pa. 448, 73 Atl. 904; Robinson v. Charfeston, 2 Rich. (S. C.) 317, 45 Am. Dec. 739; Hubbard v. Martin, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 498; Scott v. Slaughter, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 524, 80 S. W. 643; Mayor, etc., of Richmond v. Judah, 5 Leigh (Va.) 305; Gage v. Allen, 89

Wis. 98, 61 N. W. 361; Perry v. Newcastle Ac. Ins. Co., 8 Up. Can. Q. B. 363. See also Heath, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Nat. Linseed Oil Co., 99 111. App. 90 (aff'd 197 111. 632, 64 N. E. 732); Bond v. Coates, 16 Ind. 202. Cf. Rawson v. Bethesda Baptist Church, 123 111. App. 239; Mansfield v. Lynch, 59 Conn. 320, 22 Atl. 313,12 L. R. A. 285; Culbreath v. Culbreath, 7 Ga. 64, 50 Am. Dec. 375; Scott v. Board of Trustees, 132 Ky. 616, 116 S. W. 788, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 112; Lawrence v. Beaubien, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 623, 23 Am. Deo. 156.

15 Northrop's Exc'b v. Graves, 19 Conn. 548, 554, 50 Am. Dec. 264; Kane v. Morehouse, 46 Conn. 300; Mansfield v. Lynch, 59 Conn. 320, 22 Atl. 313,12 L. R. A. 285; Park Bros. & Co., Ltd., v. Blodgett & Clapp Co., 64 Conn. 28, 29 Atl. 133; Monroe Nat. Bank v. Catlin, 82 Conn. 227, 73 Atl. 3; Bronson v. Liebold, 87 Conn. 293,87 Atl 979.

16 McMurtry v. Kentucky Central R. Co., 84 Ky. 462, 464, 1 S. W. 815; Louisville Banking Co. v. Asher, 112 Ky. 138, 152, 65 S. W. 133, 99 Am. St. Rep. 283; Tucker v. Denton, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 621,106 S. W. 280,15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 289; Supreme Council v. Fenwick, 169 Ky. 269, 183 S. W. 906; Hartsfield v. Wray (Ky.), 205 S. W. 965.

17 Civil Code, Sec.Sec.1567, 1576, 1578; Gregory v. Clabrough's Ex., 129 Cal. 475, 62 Pac. 72; Ellis v. Jefferds, 130 Cal. 478, 62 Pac. 734; Wingerter v. San Francisco, 134 Cal. 547, 66 Pac. 730, 86 Am. St. Rep. 294; Hartwig v. Clark, 138 Cal. 668, 72 Pac. 149.

The tendency in courts of equity to depart from a general recognition of a distinction between mistakes of facts and law is stronger than the similar tendency in courts of law.27 In England at least it has been broadly said that a court of equity may relieve from mistake of law "if there is any equitable ground that makes it, under the particular facts of the case, inequitable that the party who received the money should retain it;" 28 and though few American courts might express themselves so broadly most would agree with the statement of the Supreme Court of Missouri.29 " It is a legal commonplace that ignorance of the law excuses no man, but this is a hard saying much murmured against, and the rule is relaxed in equity." 30

18 Civil Code, Sec.Sec. 4973, 4982, 4984.

19 Rev. Code (1913), Sec.Sec.5844, 6853, 5855; Silander v. Gronna, 15 N. Dak. 552, 108 N. W. 544, 125 Am. St. Rep. 616; Hellebust v. Bonde, (N. Dak. 1919), 172 N. W. 812.

20 Rev. Laws, 1910, Sec.Sec. 898, 907, 909; Hamilton v. Havercamp, 37 Okl. 41, 130 Pac. 259; Northwest Thresher Co. v. McNinch, 42 Okl. 155, 140 Pac. 1170. But see Campbell v. Newman, 51 Okl. 121, 151 Pac. 602.

21 Civ. Code, Sec.Sec. 1196, 1205, 1207.

22 Sees. 4576, 4577. See Culbre&th v. Culbreath, 7 Ga. 64, 50 Am. Dec. 375; Jones v. Munroe, 32 Ga. 181; Gefken v. Graef, 77 Ga. 340; Hansford v. Freeman, 99 Ga. 376, 27 S. E. 706; Strange v. Franklin, 126 Ga. 715, 55 S. E. 943.

23 See cases in the preceding note.

24 Atherton v. Roche, 192 HI. 252, 61 N. E. 357, 55 L. R. A. 591; Tilton v. Fairmount Lodge, 244 111. 617,91 N. E.

644; Baker v. Pierce, 197 111. App. 158. Cf. Moore v. Shook, 276 111. 47, 114 N. E. 592.

25 Fink v. Farmers' Bank, 178 Pa. 154, 167, 35 Atl. 636, 56 Am. St. Rep. 746; Clark v. Lehigh, etc., Coal Co., 250 Pa. 304, 95 Atl. 462; Shields v. mtchman, 251 Pa. 455, 96 Atl. 1039.

26 See also Euler v. Schroeder, 112 Md. 155, 76 Atl. 164; Godwin v. Da Conturbia, 115 Md. 488, 80 Atl. 1016.

27 See Stanley Bros., Ltd., v. Corporation of Nuneaton, 108 L. T. (N. S.)

986,992.

28 Rogere v. Ingham, 3 Ch. Div. 351. 357. See also In re Hulkes, 33 Ch. D. 552; Allcard v. Walker, [1896] 2 Ch, 369, 381.

29 Williamson v. Brown, 195 Mo. 313, 330, 93 S. W. 791.

30 In Reggio v. Warren, 207 Mass. 525, 534, 93 N. E. 805, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 340, the court indicated its hostility to the doctrine, saying: "Sometimes as