IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. (Me of the important maxims 14 the C0111111011 111W is igno ronce of the line (xras, s ale OM. It is not, how ever, :in aphorioi of link ersal application, nor is it to he pressed into the service of injustice; neither does it warrant the piesumption that every 0110 know, the 1;1W. Tiler(' is 110 such pre sumption. It would be contntry to comnom sense and reason. Yet rule that ignorance of law shall not set-se as all 1•XCII•s• fur illegal acts or conisshais is coninom to all sy. tems of law, and is not only expedient, loll necessary.
The maxim is of prime importance in criminal law, yet here it has real or apparent exceptions. If a person is indicted fur larceny he may show that he honestly believed the property to be his 1/1V11• although it appeared that this belief was fill(' to his 1g1101'1111Ci• of a 11110 of law 1%11101 ye-led the property in :mother. This results, however, from the fact that he does not. commit the erime of larceny 'unless he intended to appro priate another person', property to his own use.
Ilad the indicted person hcen stied for con version by the true owner. his ignorance of the law would have been no excuse. In the civil action for conversion his motile, or intention, or belief in taking would he immaterial. (hie who takes and uses property' as his own acts at his peril. So if a elltel'S 11110 all honest and fair contract he cannot, cxeept in certain eases of fraud or deceit (q.v.), absolve himself from its obligation by showing that he would not thins have contracted had he known the rule of law applicable to the transaction.
In general it may also be said that a person who has paid money in ignorance of the law can not recover it in a quasi-contract action. This means that no 1111111 will he permitted to exempt himself from a duty. or shelter himself from the consequences of infringing a prohibition imposed by law, or acmiire an advantage in opposition to the legal rights and interests of another by pre tending error or kolorante of law. See Itsr.%1:.t.::