Hyperlawhypertext legal database Dumois v. Hill 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 305

← Cases

Dumois v. Hill

65 N.Y. St. Rep. 305 Court N.Y.C.P. English

Delivered by Pryor, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 305
Hipolito Dumois, Pl’ff, v. William Hill, et al., Def’ts.
(New York Common Pleas, Special Term,
Filed February, 1895.)

Headnote

1. Money had and received—When not lie.
An action for money had and received will not lie against a person to whom plaintiff’s creditor has paid it on an invalid claim.
2. Same—Defenses.
In such action, defendant may show that he is entitled, as against the plaintiff, to retain the money in equity and good conscience.
Demurrer to the complaint.
Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for pl’ffs; Shearman & Sterling, for def’ts.

In substance the complaint states: A lease by defendants to plaintiffs of piers in Bast river; an action by defendants against the city of Hew York for injury to the piers, and judgment in their favor for the sum of $52,830.01, damages they had sustained by the Injury to the piers; the wrongful receipt of this money by the defendants, because the money so received by them embraced the damages occasioned to the plaintiffs by the injury to the piers; a demand of judgment for a sum equivalent to the damages sustained by the plaintiffs from the injury to the piers.

The concession in the complaint that the money recovered by the defendants was for the damage they had sustained by the injury to the piers is at once fatal to the complaint, since it admits that the money was not received to the plaintiffs’ use, but in reparation of a wrong the defendants themselves had suffered; and so the defendants are not bound, ex aequo et bona, to refund to the plaintiffs. The action for money had and received, proceeding upon equitable principles, is defeated by an equal equity in the defendant, and he is never held to return what he may keep with a good conscience. 2 Greenl. Ev. § 117 ; note to Bank v. Ellinge, 100 Am. Dec. 523 ; Buel v. Boughton, 2 Denio, 91 , 93 ; 4 Wait, Act. & Def. oil. As this allegation in the complaint may have been unnecessary and inadvertent, and as it is desirable to dispose of the demurrer upon grounds which no amendment may obviate, I shall assume the pleading to state the transaction in the' aspect most favorable to the plaintiffs, namely, that the city of Hew York was liable to the plaintiffs in the sum they demand for injury to their interest in the piers, and that this sum the defendants have received from the city upon an invalid claim that it was due to them. Still the action is untenable. The principle decisive of the

p. 306
case is: “That if two or more independent claimants apply to the debtor for payment, and the debtor pay the claimant not entitled thereto, the unsuccessful claimant cannot maintain an action for money had and received against the successful claimant to recover the money so paid. * * * If, however, the payment, though made to the wrong person, operates as a payment of the claim, so that the rightful claimant can no longer assert his claim against the party paying, then the defendant has in fact received money which belonged to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff should be allowed to recover the money so paid.” Keener, Quasi Cont. 168. That the city’s liability to the plaintiffs was not discharged by the payment to the defendants is settled by conclusive authority. Atlantic Dock Co. v. Mayor, etc., 53 N. Y. 64 ; Rowe v. Bank of Auburn, 51 N. Y. 674 ; Hathaway v. Town of Homer, 54 N. Y. 655 ; Sergeant v. Stryker, 32 Am. Dec. 404 , 405. This being so, the invalidity of the plaintiffs’ contention is clear beyond controversy. Patrick v. Metcalf 37 N. Y. 332 ; Butterworth y. Gould, 41 N. Y. 450 ; Rowe v. Bank of Auburn, 51 N. Y. 674 ; Hathaway v. Town of Homer, 54 N. Y. 655 ; Decker v. Saltzman, 59 N. Y. 275 ; Peckham v. Van Wagenen, 83 N. Y. 40 ; Fox v. McComb, 45 St. Rep. 754 ; Moore v. Moore, 127 Mass. 22 ; Rand v. Smallidge, 130 Mass. 337 ; Hall v. Carpen, 27 Ill. 386 , 29 Ill. 512 ; Kelley v. Lindsey, 7 Gray, 287 ; Sergeant v. Stryker, 32 Am. Dec. 404 ,—a case identical in principle with the present, and instructive in its exposition of the action for money had and received. Demurrer sustained, and judgment for defendants.

Cases cited