Thus  where  there  was  an  agreement  to  buy  a  lot  on  Pros-
pect Street  in  Waltham,  and  it  appeared  that  there  were  two
streets  of  that  name,  defendant  intending  to  buy  a  lot  on  one
of  said  streets  and  plaintiff  to  sell  a  lot  on  the  other,  it  was
held  that  no  contract  had  been  made.-^  So,  when  the  contract
was  for  the  sale  of  hemp,  the  buyer  intending  Kiga  hemp  and
the  seller  St.  Petersburg  hemp,  because  the  common  broker
had  given  to  them  different  sale  notes,  it  was  held  that  the
mistake  prevented  the  formation  of  a  contract.^  In  a  case
where  the  contract  was  for  the  sale  of  a  cargo  to  arrive  "ex
Peerless  from  Bombay,"  it  was  found  afterwards  that  there
were  two  ships  of  that  name  sailing  from  that  port  about  the
same  time.  It  was  held  that,  since  the  buyer  was  thinking
of  one  and  the  seller  of  the  other,  the  agreement  was  void.*

There  may  also  be  a  mistake  m  corpore,  when  two  different
things  have  not  the  same  name,  but  one  of  the  parties  to  the
contract  makes  an  excusable  mistake  in  thinking  that  the  con-
tract relates  to  one  thing  while  the  other  party  has  a  different
object  in  view.  When  the  thing,  the  corpus,  had  in  view  by
one  party  is  different  from  that  contemplated  by  the  other,
the  mistake  is  vital.
When  at  an  auction  sale  of  land,  the  auctioneer  verbally
corrected  a  misdescription  in  the  particulars  of  sale  or  adver-
tisement, a  purchaser  who  did  not  hear  the  correction  and
bought,  supposing  that  he  was  buying  the  property  as  adver-
tised, is  entitled  to  rescind  the  contract.*

1  Kyle  V.  Kavanagh,  103  Mass.  356.
2  Thornton  v.  Kempster,  5  Taunt.  786.
