It is frequently said that equity will not reform or rescind a contract if the petitioner has been guilty of negligence, or at any rate of gross negligence.70 That no such principle can be laid down as a universal rule is obvious. In many if not most cases of mistake in the expression of a contract where reformation is granted, there is some element of lack of care, but at least if the mistake is mutual and each party has been careless in failing to make a contract expressing the real intention of both, there seems no reason why relief should not be granted,71 unless this is made inequitable by some change of position other than merely entering into the contract in question.72 But if unilateral mistake, where there is no fraud or inequitable conduct, is ever to be regarded as sufficient ground for Hie rescission of a bilateral contract,73 there is more reason why a court of equity should confine its jurisdiction to cases where the party seeking relief has been free from negligence, since the blame of the situation lies wholly on the party seeking relief. In contrast with the decisions in equity, it should be observed that in many cases in an action at law to recover money paid under a mistake of fact, negligence of the plaintiff is held no bar to recovery unless there has been such a change of position as to make re-covery inequitable.74 But in these cases there had been a failure of consideration for the money paid, which often does not find perfect analogy where an attempt is made in equity to rescind an executory contract or a conveyance.

C. B. (N. S.) 324; Hooper v. Robinson, 98 U. S, 528,26 L. Ed. 219; Yarborough p. Wise, 5 Ala. 202; Maher v. Millers, 61 Ga. 566, 34 Am. Rep. 104; Granger 9. Hathaway, 17 Mich. 600; Martin 0. Allen, 125 Mo. App. 636, 103 8. W. 138. (Cf. Mason v. Commerce Trust Co., 192 Mo. App. 528,183 S. W. 707.) If the agent purported to be a principal when the payment was made to him, it is said that he cannot invoke settlement with his principal as an excuse. Newall v. Tomlinson, L. R. 6 C. P. 405; United States v. Pinover, 3 Fed. 305; Smith v. Kelly, 43 Mich. 390, 5 N. W. 437; Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill, 287. If the settlement is irrevocable, it is hard to see why such an exception should be made. The non-disclosure has not caused the mistake, and is not necessarily improper. 67 In Baylis v. bishop of London, [1913] 1 Ch. 127, the defendant had received in his official capacity money paid under a mistake, and before notice of the mistake had applied the money, in accordance with his duty, in no way for his own benefit. He was, nevertheless, held liable to repay the money and it was said (page 133): "No case can be found in the books in which a defendant has been exempted except that of an agent who has paid over to his principal." See also Klein-wort v. Dunlop Rubber Co., 97 L. T. (N. S.) 263.

68 Lawrence v. American Nat. Bank, 54 N. Y. 432, 436; Phetteplace v. Buck-lin, 18 R. I. 297, 27 Atl. 211.

69 See Standish v. Ross, 3 Exch. 527; Newall v. Tomlinson, L. R. 6 C. P. 405; Continental, etc., Co. v. JOeinwort, 90 L. T. Rep. 474; Moors v. Bird, 190 Mass. 400, 410, 77 N. E. 643; Houston, etc., Ry. v. Hughes (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 731. In the case first cited the court said: "It could not be any bar to the recovery of it, that the defendant had applied the money in the meantime to some purchase which he otherwise would not have made, and so could not be placed in statu quo." Cf. Brisbane v. Dacres, 5 Taunt. 143; Skyring v. Greenwood, 4 B. & C. 281.

70 Duke of Beaufort v. Neeld, 12 Clark & F. 248, 286; Besley v. Besley, L. R. 0 Ch. Div. 103; Barrow v. Isaacs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 417; Grymes v. Sanders, 93 U. S. 56, 23 L. Ed. 798; Pope v. Hoopes, 84 Fed. 927, 90 Fed. 461, 61 U. S. App. 446, 33 C. C. A. 596; Great Western Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 176 Fed. 325, 99 C. C. A. 615; Greil v. Tillis, 170 Ala. 391, 54 So. 524; Champion v. Woods, 79 Cal. 17, 21 Pac. 534, 12 Am. St. Rep. 126; Bonney v. Stough-ton, 122 111. 536, 13 N. E. 833; Kent v. Bailey, 181 la. 489, 164 N. W. 852; Beebe v. Birkett, 109 Mich. 663, 67 N. W. 966; Brown v. Fagan, 71 Mo. 563; Serrell v. Rothstein, 49 N. J. Eq. 385, 24 Atl. 369; Crowder v. Langdon, 3 Ired. Eq. 476; Mitchell v. Holman, 30 Or. 280, 47 Pac. 616; Path Valley R. Co. v. Brinley, 15 Pa. C. C. 339; Diman v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 5 R. 1.130; Pearce v. Suggs, 85 Tenn. 724, 4 S. W. 526; Durkee v. Durkee, 59 Vt. 70, 8 Atl. 490; Persinger's Adm. v. Chapman, 93 Va. 349, 25 8. E. 5; Ledyard v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 24 Wis. 496; Grant Marble Co. v. Abbot, 142 Wis. 279, 124 N. W. 264. But see Schauta v. Keener, 87 Ind. 258; Boulden v. Wood, 96 Md. 332, 53 Atl. 911; Story v. Garamell, 68 Neb. 709, 94 N. W. 982, and cases in the following note.

71 Albany City Savings Institution v. Burdick, 87 N. Y. 40, 46. "In most of the cases to be found in the books, where relief has been sought against written instruments on the ground of fraud and mistake, the complaining parties were chargeable with the same kind of negligence which exists in this case, to wit, the omission to read or understand the contents of instruments executed or accepted. It has certainly never been announced as the law in this State that the mere omission to read or know the contents of a written instrument should bar any relief by way of a reformation of the instrument on account of mistake or fraud." See also Cox v. Hall, 54 Mont. 154, 168 Pac. 519.

72 Pomeroy (2 Eq. Jur., {856), expresses the opinion that the general rule must be qualified and that each case must depend on its own circumstances. His words are quoted or similar statements made in Kinney t>. Ensminger, 87 Ala. 340, 6 So. 72; Seeley v. Bacon (N. J. Eq.), 34 Atl. 139; Southern F. &W. Co. v. Ozment, 132 N. C. 839, 44 8. E. 681; Powell v. Heisler, 16 Or. 412, 19 Pac. 109; San Antonio Nat. Bank v. McLane, 96 Tex. 48, 70 8. W. 201.

73 See supra, g 1578.

Unreasonable delay in seeking relief after the discovery of a mistake justifying it will bar relief; but what delay is unreasonable depends on the special circumstances of each case indicating negligent sleeping on his rights by the party seeking relief and injury caused to the other party by the delay.76

74 Kelly v. Solan, 9 M. & W. 54; Townsend v Crowdy, 8 C. B. (N. S.) 477; Continental Caoutchouc Ac. Co. v. Kleinwort, 90 L. T. (N. 8.) 474; Kleinwort v. Dunlop Rubber Co., 97 L. T. (N. S.) 263; Brown v..Tilling-hast, 84 Fed. 71; Merrill v. Brantly, 183 Ala. 537, 31 So. 847; Devine v. Edwards, 101 111. 138; Brown v. College Corner, etc., Co., 56 Ind. 110; Fraker v. little, 24 Kans. 598, 36 Am. Rep. 262; First Nat. Bank v. Behan, 91 Ky. 560, 16 S. W. 368, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 148, 16 S. W. 368; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Faunce, 6 Gill (Md.), 68, 46 Am. Dec. 655; Appleton Bank v. Mc-Guvray, 4 Gray, 518, 64 Am. Dec. 92; Pingree v. Mutual Gas Co., 107 Mich. 156, 65 N. W. 6; Koontz v. Central Nat. Bank, 51 Mo. 275; Bone v. Friday, 180 Mo. App. 577, 167 S. W. 99; Douglas County v. Keller, 435 Neb. 635, 62 N. W. 60; Waite v. Leggett, 8 Cow. 195,18 Am. Dec. 441; National Bank of Commerce v. National Ac. Assoc., 55 N. Y. 211, 14 Am. Rep. 232; Hathaway v. Delaware County, 185 N. Y. 368, 370, 78 N. E. 153, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 273, 113 Am. St. Rep. 909; Payne v. Witherbee, etc., Co., 132 N. Y. App. Div. 579, 117 N. Y. S. 15; Simms v. Vick, 151 N. C. 78, 65 8. E. 621, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 517; James River Nat. Bank v. Weber, 19 N. D. 702,124 N. W. 952; McKibben v. Doyle, 173 Pa. 579, 34 Atl. 455, 51 Am. St. Rep. 785; City Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 45 Tex. 203; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 731; City Nat. Bank v. Peed (Va.), 32 S. E. 34. But see Grymes v. Sanders, Adm'r, 93 U. S. 55, 23 L. Ed. 798; Stanley Rule & Level Co. v. Bailey, 45 Conn. 464, 466; Norton v. Marden, 15 Me. 45, 47, 32 Am. Deo. 132; Ash v. McLellan, 101 Me. 17, 62 Atl. 598; Wheeler v. Hatheway, 56 Mich. 77, 24 N. W. 780; Brummitt v. McGuire, 107 N. C. 351, 12 S. E. 191, 193; First Nat. Bank v. Taylor, 122 N. C. 569, 29 S. E. 831; Simmons v. Looney, 41 W. Va. 738, 24 S. E. 677, 678-9.

75 Newman v. Milner, 2 Ves. Jr. 483; Grymes v. Sanders, Adm'r, 93 U. S. 55, 23 L. Ed. 798; Snell v. Atlantic F. & M. Ins. Co., 96 U. S. 85, 25 L. Ed. 52; Kinney v. Consolidated Virginia Min. Co., 4 Sawy. 382, 392, Fed. Cam, No. 7,827; Salinas v. Stillmaa, 66 Fed.