Devine v. Wonderlich (1980) 288 N.W.2d 902 288 N.W.2d 902 (Cite as: 288 N.W.2d 902) for the salary received by Wonderlich. Our holding is therefore limited to the election contest context. We also note, as earlier mentioned, that the legislature has provided a partial solution to salary disputes which may arise from election contests by enacting section 62.20, and that ultimate resolution of the issue before us, as well as consideration of possible governmental liability, would be an appropriate subject for legislative action. In Brown v. Tama County, 122 Iowa 745, 754, 98 N.W. 562, 566 (1904), a case involving alleged governmental liability to a de jure officeholder following an election contest, we stated that any hardship which devolves upon the de facto officeholder can be traced to the fault of the de facto officeholder "who, without sufficient grounds, has disputed his right and taken emoluments which rightfully he (the de jure officeholder) should have received." We further noted that an election contest is basically private in nature, involving only the contestants as active parties. Id. It is largely this rationale, and the resulting apportionment of liability as applied to election contests, which we are asked to reconsider. We find the factual situation presented by the election contest in this case to require a reversal of our earlier position as stated in Harding and the aforementioned cases. It is clear that the public good is best served when the office is occupied and the duties discharged. Brown, 104 Iowa at 754-55, 98 N.W. at 566. In the event of a close election where the outcome hinges upon the validity of a number of disputed votes, the candidate who initially takes office pursuant to the results of an election contest would necessarily be forced to assume the risk that he or she may be forced to surrender any salary received to his or her opponent in the election. He or she could thus in good faith discharge the duties of office in the public service and yet receive no compensation. Such a possibility, we believe, operates more as a deterrent to filling the office pending an election contest since the issue of potential personal liability to the eventual de jure officeholder remains open. See Stuhr v. Curran, 44 N.J.L. 181, 190 Page 3 (1882). Removing the onus from the de facto officer would ensure maintenance of the public service and, as we will yet discuss, result in a more equitable distribution of risk. In Brown, as noted above, we stated that any fault which may be found rests on the de facto officer as he or she chose to assume office or contest the election on insufficient grounds. We no longer find this reasoning persuasive. If any error is found in election contest litigation, it is usually attributable to the contest court or the district court whose decisions determine the occupant of the office.[FN1] As was stated in the leading case of *905Stuhr v. Curran, 44 N.J.L. at 189 -90, and acknowledged by those courts applying the minority position to election contests, e. g., LaBelle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42, 160 A.2d 723, 725 (1960); State ex rel. Byrd v. Scott County, 181 Tenn. 665, 671, 184 S.W.2d 20, 23 (1941); State ex rel. Godby v. Hager, 154 W.Va. 606, 609, 177 S.E.2d 556, 558 (1970), fault does not lie with the de facto officer: FN1. We in no way mean to imply that the members of the contest court or the district court, discharging their statutory duties in good faith, may be liable to the de jure officeholder. See, e. g., Blanton v. Barrick, 258 N.W.2d 306, 308-09 (Iowa 1977). It would, however, be far more just and accordant with legal principles that the public treasury should respond to the plaintiff here, than that the loss should fall upon the defendant, for it was through the mistake of the officers of the law, and not by the defendant's fault, that the plaintiff has been subjected to the deprivation of his office. If fraud was imputable to the defendant, the case would present a different aspect, but there is no pretence of bad faith on his part upon which to found a recovery. The unquestioned rule that mistake of the law excuses no one, and that the appropriation of another's property under the honest belief by the wrong-doer that it is his own, furnishes no defence, has not the slightest application here. The distinction is too obvious to escape 211