A mistake as to a rule of foreign law is always treated as a mistake of fact.1 The question of what law is to be treated as foreign and what as domestic has been considered in connection with misrepresentations of foreign law.2

2Sallee v. Sallee (Ky.), 35 S. W. 437.

3Haviland v. Willets, 141 N. Y. 35, 35 N. E. 958.

4Van Norsdall v. Smith, 141 Mich. 355, 104 N. W. 660.

1 Connecticut. Patterson v. Bloomer, 35 Conn. 57, 95 Am. Dec. 218.

Illinois. Marshall v. Coleman, 187 111. 556, 58 N. E. 628.

Indiana. Schlosser v. Nicholson, 184 Ind. 283, 111 N. E. 13.

Kansas. Osincup v, Henthorn, 89

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

Massachusetts. Haven v. Foster, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) 112.

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

New York. Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 233; Merchants' Bank v. Spalding, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 302.

See Pittsburgn, etc., Iron Co. v. Iron Co., 118 Mich. 109, 76 N. W. 395.

2 See Sec. 397 and 398.