 | Minnesota. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1910 - 634 pages
...to cases of this character. The maxim, "Ignorantia juris haud excusat," has no application where the parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their relative and respective rights. See, also, Earl Beauchamp v. Winn, 6 LR Eng. & Irish App. Cas. 223 (1873). In Jones v. Clifford, 3... | |
 | Law - 1872 - 974 pages
...country. But when the word jus is used in the sense of denoting a private law the maxim has no application Private right of ownership is a matter of fact — it may be the rtsult also of law ; but if parties con tract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their... | |
 | Sonja Meier - Conflict of laws - 1999 - 456 pages
...when the wordy'ws is used in the sense of denoting a private right, that maxim has no application. Private right of ownership is a matter of fact; it may be the result also of a matter of law; but if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their relative... | |
 | Oughton - Law - 2000 - 826 pages
...and B appears to have had no title at all. To such a case, Lord Westbury applied the principle that if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension...relative and respective rights the result is that the agreement is liable to be set aside as having proceeded upon a common mistake. Applied to the context,... | |
 | Simon Salzedo, Peter Brunner - Law - 2004 - 304 pages
...Act of Parliament. Held the agreement would be set aside on terms set by the court. Per Lord Westbury 'Private right of ownership is a matter of fact; it may be the result also of a matter of law; but, if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their relative... | |
| |
But when the word jus is used in the sense of denoting a private right, that maxim Has no application. Private right of ownership is a matter of fact ; it may be the result also of matter of law, but if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension... 
