Payments of public money made by officials made under a mistake of law may be recovered.52 Though no such broad principle is applicable conversely where money is paid to a public officer, a court will not permit one of its own officers to retain moneys paid to him under a mistake of law where there is failure of consideration. This principle has been applied to various court officers, receivers, trustees or assignees in bankruptcy, and even attorneys, although it may be doubted whether it is of universal application in the last case.53

"Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 190, 17 Sup. Ct. 46, 41 L. Ed. 399 (cf. Badeau v. United States, 130 U. S. 439, 32 L. Ed. 997, 9 Sup. Ct. 579); McElrath v. United States, 12 Ct. CI. 201; Barnes v. Dist. of Col., 22 Ct. Cl. 366; Ada County v. Gees, 4 Idaho, 611, 43 Pac. 71; Board of Com'rs v. Heaston, 144 Ind. 583, 41 N. E. 457, 43 N. E. 651, 55 Am. St. Rep. 192; Heath v. Albrook, 123 la. 559, 98 N. W. 619; State v. Young, 134 la. 505, 110 N. W. 292; Jones County v. Arnold, 134 la. 580, I11 N. W. 973; Board of Commissioners v. Patrick, 12 Kan. 605; Ellis v. Board of Auditors, 107 Mich. 528, 65 N. W. 577; Lamar Township v. City of Lamar, 261 Mo. 171, 169 S. W. 12; Board of Supervisors v. Ellis, 59 N. Y. 620; Allegheny County v. Grier, 179 Pa. St. 639, 36 Atl. 353; Commonwealth v. Field, 84 Va. 26, 3 S. E. 882; Douglas County v. Sommer, 120 Wis. 424, 98 N. W. 249. See also Kerr v. Regester, 42 Ind. App. 375, 85 N. E. 790. Contrary decisions, however, are Jefferson County v. Hawkins, 23 Fla. 223, 2 So. 362, 365; People v. Foster, 133 I11. 496, 23 N. E. 615 (cf. Moffett v. People, 134 I11.

App. 550); Wayne County v. Randall, 43 Mich. 137, 5 N. W. 75; State v. Ewing, 116 Mo. 129, 22 S. W. 476; Heald v. Polk County, ,46 Neb. 28, 64 N. W. 376; Territory v. Newhall, 15 N. M. 141, 103 Pac. 962; Richland County v. Miller, 16 S. C. 236. See also Morgan Park v. Knopf, 199 I11. 444, 65 N. E. 322; Board of Highway Commrs. v. Blcomington, 253 I11. 164, 97 N. E. 280, Ann. Cas. 1913 A. 471. 53 Ex parte James, 9 Ch. App. 609 (trustee in bankruptcy); Ex parte Simmonds, 16 Q. B. D. 308 (trustee in bankruptcy); Gillig v. Grant, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 596, 49 N. Y. S. 78 (receivers); Moulton v, Bennett, 18 Wend. 586 (attorney). In Ex parte Simmonds, L. R. 16, Q. B. D. 308,312, Lord Esher said: "A rule has been adopted by courts of law for the purpose of putting an end to litigation, that, if one litigant party has obtained money from the other erroneously, under a mistake of law, the party who has paid it cannot afterwards recover it. But the court has never intimated that it is a high-minded thing to keep money obtained in this way; the court allows the party who has obtained it to do a shabby payment, recovery of it hag been allowed, though the defendant acted in good faith.55