Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Ala. 778

Wilson v. Sergeant

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1848

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1848-01-15

Assumpsit by the defendant, against the plaintiff in error. Upon the.trial, as appears from a bill of exceptions, Sergeant, administrator of the estate of Edmund O’Reilly, paid to Wilson, adm’r de bonis non of the estate of P. O’Reilly, $2,296 87, in part discharge of a decree, which had been obtained in the orphans’ court of Franklin, in favor of the estate of the latter, against the estate of the former.

Relies on Yarborough v. Wise

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1848-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1927

10 state decisions

40184818501860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

ORMOND, J.

¶1The principle which governs this case, is the one involved in the case of Yarbrough v. Wise, 5 Ala. 292 — that money paid by mistake, to an agent, or stakeholder,- may be recovered back, if he is notified of the mistake, before he pays it over to his principal. There is no pretence here that the money was paid out in the distribution of the assets, or in the payment of the debts of the estate, before the demand made by Sergeant, and upon the well established principles of law, he could not refuse to refund it.

¶2The eharge moved for, assumes that if the money paid to the defendant, by the plaintiff, belonged to the estate of E. O’Reilly, it cannot be recovered back ; but it is clear the assets of the estate iii the hands of the plaintiff, consisted of the amount which would be left, after paying the charges against it, and the settlement subsequently made by the plaintiff, with the orphans’ court, ascertains conclusively, the assets in his hands, subject to the payment of the debts.

¶3We may lay entirely out of view, the promise of the defendant, as the lmv implies a promise to pay, whenever one has money in his hands, belonging to another, which ex equo, et bono, he has not the right to retain, and which on demand he refuses to pay to the right owner. Judgment affirmed. ■

/12/ala/778 · .json · Public domain