Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-01

! the ldllQ vac M
control or regulation Of either of the
parties but rather a matter solely
within the power of a third patty
| the state-the conditions under which
| the respondent here might have car
| ried GU. the obligations imposed by
the contract were not within his con-
troll. 1t would appear here as though
the agreement was founded upon a
false conception as to the law under
(which its terms were to be carried
out and upon the operation Of which
law performance was contin gent.
This precludes the idea OF a meeting
of the minds. A contract or agree
lment founded on a false conception
as to a matter or thing then existent
is null in so far as it may be opera
tive against the party who miscon-
c%eives.
Prevail VS.. Fitch, "a Am. Dec. $50.
1t has been said that where a con-
tract was made under a mistaken idea
Or belief that future legislation would
be enacted, which legislation was new
err enacted, and the failure for the
enactment of the same was not I'M
putable to either of the parties, the
contract Is not enforceable. C R. c..
l.. o!O): If this rule is applicable to
legislation not yet enacted, it is equal
~ applicable to laws in existence at
the time OF the making of the con-
tract: the effect of which makes the
conditions Of the contract legally
impossible Of accomplishment,
In the cas- Of Miles vs.. Stevens
- An. Dec. 621, the Supreme Court
OF pennsylvania gave expression TO
that which We find to be a general
rule, namely, that if the agreement in
question was made under a mistaken
IMPRESSION that facts essential to the
contract did exist or would after
wards exist, and if the contracting
parties were prevented from perform
ing by causes over which the parties
had no control, the contract is I'M
enforceable. There the court said:
we perceive no distinction either
III principle or authority, where the
partles contract. either with a veiw to
existing facts, or facts merely in con-
temptation between the parties. de-
pendent on future events or contin-
senc1es.. In either case. when the
basis OF the contract fails without
the assent OF the parties. to attempt
70 enforce the agreement is %inequit-
able"
The principle thing in the minds OF
the contracting parties, as disclosed
from the very language of the con-
tract itself, was the sale and DISPOSE
ton of lands which at the time OF
the making Of the contract were of
the open public domain of the United
states. 1T was the accomplishment
/, o. the ultimate purpose of the con
tracing parties, namely, the sale of
the land, which was to terminate the
obligation imposed upon appellant
here. They were mistaken when they
assumed that either of the parties
might sell or dispose Of the, public
domain under the law known as the
Carey Act. They were mistaken when
they assumed that the Carey Act,
the law which their joint venture
was to set in motion, permitted the
sale Of the land by the individuals
associations or corporations at whose
instance the land would be withdrawn
from public entry. In our judgment
we assert a correct rule of law, fairly
applicable to the matter at bar, when
), we say that where certain facts as
sumed by both parties to a contract
are the basis of the contract, and it
subsequently appears that such fact:
: do not exist, or by a law then exist
ent are made impossible or 1nopera-
tive, the contract is void.
= Fink VS.. Smith, 10 Pa. St. ia; 81
Am. St. Rep. $50.
In Ruling Case Law, at page 62l
| we find a statement which we be
: lieve we'll supported by authority, to
| the effect that if an agreement is in.
duced by a mistake common to boil
/ parties, without which mistake tn
e agreement would not have been made
: and the mistake was in respect to tn
h subject matter of the contract, TIL
. agreement is imperative and void
v This rule says the authority
(which has been adopted as a part o
the law. is based upon TIL
J idea that in such cases no contrac
{ has been contaminated, that tn
minds of the parties have lever me
in respect to the real subject matte
d of the contract. 1t is not a case OF
mere failure OF consideration, TO
n that implies the existence OF a cor,
tract, while a mutual mistake pre-
vents the existence OF one.
:. Where parties assume to contrac
and there is a mistake as to the ex
istence of a subject matter. it is, w
think, a correct statement of the la
i that under SuCn COnd1tlOHS tneFe
y no contract because of the want {
'r mutual assent necessary to Great
r. one.
u We quote from 5 Ruling Case Law
y page o2l, that which we deem appl
n. cable to the matter at bar, to the 10
IN lowing effect:
c. "If by mutual mistake a contra
le is founded upon a condition imposs
s bic OF performance because of the a
Ii sumption Of the existtnce of a "a
~ which cannot exist, and its adoptic
o J by both parties as the sole standal
le bv which to test the performance
.; the condition. the contract cannot !
lg enforced, ard it is mmaterlai wi
IL furnished the information upon whl'
the condition is predIcated, or tn
to the person pleading the mistake h:
ne the means OF discovering 1t. or