2 Denio 91 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1846
This is a remarkable casé. The plaintiff first omitted, by mistake, to maleé the note payable with interest, as he should have done; and then, by another mistake, he corrected the first error by paying interest, when the note itself imposed no such obligation. And thus by two blunders the parties have come out right at last. Or at least, the plaintiff has paid no more than he ought to pay; and there would be no ground for an action to recover back the money paid for interest, if the payment had been made to James H. Fuller, the payee of the note, against whom the first mistake was made. One party would in that case have paid, and the
But the payment was not made to James H. Fuller; and this leads me to notice that not only the plaintiff and James II. Fuller acted from beginning to end under the mistaken supposition that the note was made payable, as it should have been, with interest; but the note was twice transferred, and both Almerin Fuller and the defendant took it under the same mistake of supposing it carried interest. Now as against the plaintiff, James H. Fuller had an equitable claim to have the mistake corrected, so as to give him interest on the debt. Then Almerin, having taken and paid James for the note as though it were on interest, had an equitable claim to have the mistake corrected, so as to give the interest to him. The same thing is true as between the defendant and Almerin. The defendant took and paid him for the note as though it carried interest. And thus by a series of mistakes the equitable claim to interest which was originally in James, passed from him to Almerin, and from Almerin to the defendant; so that, at the time the money was paid, the defendant was the person who was equitably entitled to receive it. He could not have sued the plaintiff for it at law in his own name; but in a court of equity the money would have been awarded to him, and not to James H. Fuller. It has come into the defendant’s hands without suit, and from the person who ought to pay it; and I see no sufficient reason for requiring it to be refunded. Whether the defendant could sue at law in his own name to recover the money; or whether, having fairly got it, this action for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use can be maintained, are very different questions. This is an equitable action, which may be defended upon the same equitable principles as those upon which it is maintained. As a general rule, the question is, to which party ex cequo et bono does the money belong; and in this case, I think it belongs to the defendant, who has got it. Let us suppose that the plaintiff had refused to pay the interest to the defendant; but, being liable to pay it to some one, he had paid it, either voluntarily or by compulsion, to James H. Fuller, between whom and the plaintiff the
It is said that although the plaintiff has paid the interest to the defendant, he may be compelled to pay it again in an action on his bond to Mrs. Smith. But I think not. It fully appears that the principal sum of money for Avhich the note was given belonged to James H. Fuller ■; and of course he Avas entitled to the interest which should afterwards accrue on that sum. If the indorsement made on the plaintiff’s bond would not of itself preclude Mrs. Smith from recovering the interest in question, it would clearly be enough to show in addition, that the plaintiff had corrected the error by paying the interest. But if the plaintiff should succeed in recalling the money, then undoubtedly Mrs. Smith, on proving the mistake in giving the note, and that the plaintiff had not corrected it, might recover this interest for the benefit of James H. Fuller. But by leaving the money where it is, the whole series of mistakes avüI be corrected, and all parties, unless it be the plaintiff, will be satisfied.
Judgment affirmed.