12 Mass. 134 | Mass. | 1815
This is an attempt to try over again a matter, which has been a long time since tried and determined by a tribunal chosen by the parties, in conformity to their mutual agreement in the policy. The same facts, which are now set up as a ground of action, were then insisted upon as a defence against the claim under the
[*137]' * It appears from the report of the trial, that the underwriters were advertised of their failure of evidence, and tho‘ at opportunity was offered them of a further day, in order that they might procure testimony to prove their defence, which was, unquestionably, good in principle. But they chose to submit to a decision, notwithstanding the warning ; and they paid the money agreeably to the award.
If they could now prove that evidence was fraudulently concealed, or that the arbitrators were imposed upon by any false statements of the defendant, the case might be different.
This was, at least, a voluntary payment of money by the underwriters, which cannot be recovered back, unless some circumstance of mistake, fraud, or circumvention, is proved, as the actuating cause of the payment.
Judgment on the verdict.
Bean vs. Farnum, & al., 6 Pick. 269. — Jones vs. Boston Mill Corporation, 6 Pick 348.
Wallis vs. Wallis, 4 Mass. Rep. 135. — Gates vs. Winslow, 1 Mass. Rep. 65
Newburyport M. Ins. Co. vs. Oliver & al., 8 Mass. Rep. 65 [Richardson vs. Suffolk Ins. Co., 3 Metc. Rep. 573. — Ed.]