TAYMON VS. MITCHELL. 505

which could readily be found. Daniel vs. Mitchell, 1 Story,
C. C; 172; Amsley vs. Medlycot, 9 Ves., 31, nofe <i.

The principle appears to be, that w a case of misrepresen-
tation of facts, though inadvertently made, by anufcual mistake
of parties, or by mistake of either one of them, if the other
b&s been prejudiced thereby, a court of equity will set it aside
and declare it a ftullity.

The jurisdiction of the court is supposed to be clearly estab-
lished by the cases of Evans vs. Bicknell, 6 Vesey, 174; Bur-
rowes vs. Lock, 10 Vesey, 470; Bacon vs. Bronson, 7 Johns.
Ch. Rep., 201.

It has been urged that this case is not unlike the case of Al-
bert and wife vs. The Savings Bank of Baltimore, recently de-
cided by this court, and referred to in the argument. It seems
to me, however, to be totally dissimilar.

That was a case in which the bank, contrary to the pro-
visions .of its charter, had loaned a sum of money to one of its
directors. The contract, though forbidden by its charter, was
fairly and boaa fide entered into, without the slightest taint of
fraud or misrepresentation affecting its morality. The money
loaned by the bank to the director, had been enjoyed by Jaim,
and not being paid at the time stipulated, the bank sold the se-
curities held by it in pledge, and reimbursed itself. There
could be ino pretence, it seemed to me, ex <eqw et bono, to
compel the bank to pay back this money, either to the party
who borrowed it or to any one else. Though the bank could
not have recovered the money from the borrower, because of
the legal inhibition to make the loan, yet still in foro conscienr
tie, it was due, and being paid, no court of justice would lend
its aid to compel its return. It would be repugnant to the
plainest principles of justice.

But in this case, though the contract has been performed by
the delivery of the property and payment of the consideration,
yet, as its performance was the result of imposition, whether
designed or not, practiced upon the purchaser, is immaterial^—
the court will rescind it, and place the parties in their original
situation. In all the cases in which the contract has been re-
VOL. i—43