¶1The 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.
119 Mass. 143
Stuart v. Sears
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1875
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1875-11-15
Contract by Charles H. Stuart, John H. Snow and Ether S, Foss, partners under the firm name of Stuart, Snow & Foss, to recover $1000 for work done and materials furnished by the plaintiffs for the defendant. The declaration also contained a count for the same amount, as money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiffs’ use, and a count setting forth substantially the facts which appear in the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs.
Relies on Merchants' National Bank v. National Eagle Bank · Riggs v. Hawley · President of the Union Bank v. President of the Bank of the United States
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1875-11-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1942
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →