Equity will not relieve against mistakes of law. There are probably no real exceptions to this rule.9 There are, however, three apparent exceptions, as follows:

(a) Mistakes as to private statutes.

7 Dinian vs. Railroad Co., 5 R. I., 137.

8 Razzell vs. Razzell, 109 Ind., 354;

10 N. E., 114. 9 "But there is a long line of specific authorities, most of them undoubtedly correct, in which relief for mistake of law has either been granted or admitted to be a proper head of equity jurisdiction. All of these cases will, upon examination, be found to rest, not upon the consideration of a meie mistake of law, stripped of all other circumstances, but upon an admixture of other ingredients going to establish misrepresentation, imposition, abuse of confidence, undue influence, mental imbecility, or that sort of surprise which equity uniformly regards as a just foundation for relief." Eaton on Equity, Sec. 112.

(b) Mistakes as to foreign laws.

(Both of these mistakes are considered as being mistakes of fact, it being necessary to prove both private statutes and foreign laws as facts.)

(c) Where a mistake of law occasions a mistake of fact, and the action from which relief is sought is induced by such mistake of fact. The most common illustrations of this last class are fond in mistakes as to ownership which are occasioned by mistakes of law. A mistake as to ownership, however occasioned, is a mistake of fact.

Mistake by a party as to the legal effect of an agreement which he executes, or as to the legal results of an act which he performs, is no ground for either defensive or affirmative relief.10 Thus, a deed conveying land to the grantee for life, "and upon his death unto his heirs and their assigns forever,,, has been held to pass a fee to the grantee, even though it also recites an intention to convey the land to the grantee "to hold only during his natural life, and upon (his death) to be held in fee simple by his heirs." The fact that the word "heirs" was inserted in such deed instead of "children," by mistake as to the legal effect of the word, being held no ground for reforming the deed.11

10 "If there were no elements of fraud, concealment, misrepresentation, undue influence, violation of confidence reposed, or of other inequitable conduct in the transaction, the party who knew, or had. an opportunity to know, the contents of an agreement or other instrument cannot defeat its performance or obtain its cancellation or reformation because he mistook the legal meaning and effect of the whole or of any portion of its provisions. Where the parties, with knowledge of the facts, and without any equitable incidents, have made an agreement or other instrument as they intended it should be, and the writing expresses the transaction as it was understood and designed to be made, then the above rule uniformly applies; equity will not allow a defense, or grant a reformation or rescission, although one of the Earties - as many cases old, both of them - have mistaken or misconceived its legal meaning, scope and effect." Pomeroy on Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. 843.