Summary

H. N. Neill West v. West, 29 S.W. 242 — Opinion of the Court (1895)

While this general doctrine prevails in equity as well as at law, equity sometimes exercises it jurisdiction on account of a mistake of law. If the mistake of law is not pure and simple, but is induced or accompanied by other special facts giving rise to an independent equity on behalf of the mistaken person, such as inequitable conduct of the other party, equity will interpose its aid. Even when a mistake of law is pure and simple, equity may in some cases interfere.
Source: Wikisource

H. N. Neill West v. West, 29 S.W. 242 — Opinion of the Court (1895)

Wherever a person is ignorant or mistaken with respect to his own antecedent and existing private legal rights, interests, duties, liabilities, or other relations, either of property, or contract, or personal status, and enters into some transaction the legal scope and operation of which he clearly apprehends and understands, for the purpose of affecting such assumed rights, interests, or relations, or of carrying out such assumed duties or liabilities, equity will grant its relief, defensive or affirmative, treating the mistake as analogous to, if not identical with, a mistake of fact.
Source: Wikisource

H. N. Neill West v. West, 29 S.W. 242 — Opinion of the Court (1895)

It must also be taken as true that these representations and promises were made for the purpose of defrauding Mary and her child out of their homestead interest. That she believed said representations to be true and relied upon his promises, and that by them her fears, compassions, and sympathies were so wrought upon that she was induced, without consideration, to execute said deed.
The question then is, are these facts sufficient to warrant a court of equity in decreeing a cancellation of the instrument? A general rule, a mistake of law pure and simple is not adequate ground for relief.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature