History
  • No items yet
midpage
Stuart v. Sears
119 Mass. 143
Mass.
1875
Check Treatment
Gray, C. J.

The instructions to the jury were in exact accordance with the well settled law. If the sum now sued for was allowed in the settlement between the parties, without fraud, by way of compromise of a doubtful claim, it could not be recovered back; but if it was paid by the plaintiffs, relying upon erroneous vouchers produced by the defendant at the time of the settlement, it might, even if there was no fraud, be recovered back as money paid by mistake. Riggs v. Hawley, 116 Mass. 596, 598. Merchants’ National Bank v. National Eagle Bank, 101 Mass. 281, 285. Paige v. Sherman, 6 Gray, 511. Union Bank v. Bank of United States, 3 Mass. 74. Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Stuart v. Sears
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Nov 15, 1875
Citation: 119 Mass. 143
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.