172  MICTAKE

ing  proceeded  upbn  a  common  mistake."^  So,  if  one  thinking
that  he  has  ojily  a  leasehold  interest  in  certain  land  buys  the
supposed  reversion,  he  may  recover  the  money  as  paid  under
a  mistake  of  fact  upon  discovering  that  he  was  really  the
owner  in  fee.*  Conversely,  it  has  been  held  that  if  a  man
sells  property  in  his  possession,  which  he  supposes  to  belong
to  A.  and  as  A.'s  agent,  and  it  afterwards  turns  out,  contrary
to  the  expectation  of  all  parties,  that  it  was  the  seller's  own
property,  there  is  no  sale.'

An  administrator  sold  land  supposing  that  he  was  selling
the  fee  and  the  purchaser  supposed  that  he  was  buying  that
interest.  When  it  turned  out  that  nothing  passed  but  an
equity  of  redemption,  it  was  held  that  this  was  a  material
and  mixed  mistake  of  fact  and  law  which  entitled  the  pur-
chaser to  relief.®  A  deed  executed  in  consequence  of  a  com-
mon mistake  as  to  the  extent  of  the  grantor's  interest  in  the
land  will  be  vacated.'^  A  mistake  "as  to  the  ownership  of
land  is  a  mistake  of  fact  in  regard  to  which  equity  will  grant
relief,  although  the  mistake  arose  from  an  erroneous  viow
of  the  legal  effect  of  a  deed.*

When  a  party  consents  to  the  distribution  of  money  to
another  under  the  erroneous  belief  that  the  latter  is  entitled
to  it,  that  consent  does  not  afterwards  estop  him  from  requir-
ing that  the  mistake  be  corrected.^

s  Cooper  V.  Phibbs,  L.  E.  2  H.  L.  170.  See  also  concerning  mistake
as  to  title,  Wilson  v.  Md.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  60  Md.  157 ;  Ankenny  v.  Clark,
148  U.  S.  345 ;  Bigbam  v.  Madison,  103  Tenn.  35S ;  Hatch  v.  Kizer,  140
111.  583.
