By

"foreign law" in this sense is meant law that is foreign to the law of the domicile of the party who makes such mistake or to whom a misrepresentation of law has been made.1 The law of the domicile of the party who alleges mistake or misrepresentation of law is as to him domestic law; and the law of other jurisdictions is foreign law, if he brings his suit in the jurisdiction of his domicile. So a mistake made by a citizen of Massachusetts concerning a rule of New York law is treated as a mistake of fact.2 Even if such "foreign law" is the law of the forum in which the action is ultimately brought, a mistake as to such law is treated as a mistake of fact rather than as a mistake of law.3 A representation by a citizen of Iowa to an alien domiciled and residing in Germany, concerning a question of Iowa law affecting title to Iowa land, has been held to be a representation of fact.4 So one domiciled in Ohio, who there discounts a negotiable instrument illegally issued in New York, under mistake as to New York law, may in an action in New York treat such mistake as one of fact and recover the money paid for such negotiable instrument.5

23 Hunter v. Sherron, - N. Car. - , 97 S. E. 5.

1Bethell v. Bethell, 92 Ind. 318; Wood v. Roeder, 50 Neb. 470, 70 N. W. 21; Rosenbaum v. Credit System Co., 64 N. J. L. 34, 44 Atl. 966; King v. Doolittle, 38 Tenn. (1 Head) 77.

2 Rosenbaum v. Credit-System Co., 64 N. J. L. 34, 44 Atl. 966.

1 Nicholson v. Nicholson, 83 Kan. 223, 109 Pac. 1086; Osincup v. Henthorn, 89 Kan. 58, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1262, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 174, 130 Pac. 652; Haven v. Foster, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) 112, 19 Am. Dec. 353.

2 Haven v. Foster, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) 112, 19 Am. Dec. 353.

3Illinois. Marshall v. Coleman. 137 111. 556, 58 N. E. 628.

Indiana. Ellison v. Branstrator. 153 Ind. 146, 54 N. E. 433; Schlosser v. Nicholson, 184 Ind. 283, 111 N. E. 13.

Iowa. Schneider v. Schneider, 125 la. 1, 98 N. W. 159.

Kansas. Osincup v. Henthorn, 89 Kan. 58, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1262, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 174, 130 Pac. 652.

New York. Bank v. Dodge, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 233.

Washington. Morgan v. Bell, 3 Wash. 554, 16 L. R. A. 614, 28 Pac. 925.

Contra, Bentley v. Whittemore, 18 N. J. Eq. 366.

4 Schneider v. Schneider, 125 la. 1, 98 N. W. 159.

5Bank v. Dodge, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 233.