BABNES V. VIALL. 671 �under a common mistake, and therefore, while a knowledge of law is imputed to every one, an act done in ignorance of the law should not have consequences which the actor could not in fact have intended. In this respect it differa from the act of causing the plaintiff'a arrest, because that inflicted a positive injury which bas no legal excuse. Bequiring support in prison was not more a waiver, under th© circumstances, than staying there was a waiver. It is a f act which goes very far in Teduction of damages, but not to the whole action. There is no evidence that the defendant suffered more or otherwise, in any respect, than h« would have done if the attoraey had been a little more prompt. He bas given us n& evidence of any losses or expenses, or of any special damage. He was illegally arrested and deta,ined through a mistake of law or miscalculation of time, which was shared by ail the par- ties. �The plaintiff bas brought these actions, as he had a right to do, and we hold that two of them are sustained by the facts. The injury was single, but the defendants Steere and Potter are jointly and severally liable, and the plaintiff can obtain from one or both of them a single satisfaction. Mur- ray v. Lovejoy, 2 Cliff. 191; S. C. 3 Wall. 1; Stone v. Dick- inson, 5 Allen, 29; S. C. 7 Allen, 26; Gregory v. Cotterell, 1 E. & B. 360; EUiott ^. Hayden, 104 Mass. 180; Savage v. Stevens, 128 Mass. 254. �If the action or actions had been brought in the supreme court of Ehode Island, there might have been a,set-off of judg- ments between the plaintiff and Steere. Whether this remedy is open here, we do not decide. �We assess damages against the defendants Steere and Pot- ter severally at $500, with costs. �We give judgment for the defendant Viall foi: his costs. �Knowles, D. J., concurred. ��� �
