Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Ala. 25

Weeks v. Love

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1851

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1851-01-15

ERROR, to the Circuit Court of Pike county. Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. 1. When money is paid under a mistake of fact or false representation, it may be recovered back.^ — Martin v. Morgan, 5 Eng. Com. Law, Rep. 87. 2. Money paid under a mutual mistake of facts, there being no fraud, may be recovered back. — 1 Sup. U.. S. Dig. 192. 3. When an administrator of an insolvent estate has overpaid a debt, he may recover it back in assumpsit. — lb. 4.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1962

6 state decisions

20185118601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

CHILTON, J.

¶1This was an action brought by tbe plaintiff in error against tbe defendant, as administrator of tbe estate of Walter McBeth, to recover money, which tbe plaintiff, as administrator in chief of tbe same estate, had paid by mistake to John C. & Mary McBeth, who succeeded him in the administration. It appeared that John C. & Mary bad quit tbe administration, and bad turned over the assets of tbe estate to tbe defendant, who was administrator de bonis non, by virtue of bis office, as sheriff of the county. Tbe bill of exceptions does not state that tbe money thus paid by tbe plaintiff through mistake to tbe intervening representatives, was treated by them as assets, or paid over by them to tbe defendant, who succeeded them ; but only shows that tbe assets of the estate passed into tbe defendant’s bands. Tbe court charged tbe jury, that upon this proof tbe plaintiff could not recover.

¶2In our opinion, this charge was correct; for it is very clear that the money overpaid through mistake was not an asset of tbe estate, and that tbe estate could not be made chargeable on *27account of its receipt by tbe administrator de bonis non, but the party who has it in possession has money which, ex aequo et bono, belongs to the party, who, through mistake, has paid it, and is liable, not as administrator, but in his individual capacity, to refund it to the plaintiff. The cases of Houston v. Frazer, 8 Ala. Rep. 81; and Sellers v. Smith, 11 ib. 264; furnish a sufficient guide as to the manner in which a recovery may be had. It is very certain, that if the defendant has only received the assets proper belonging to the estate (and the bill of exceptions certifies to us, that he has only received such) he cannot be charged by-reason of their receipt for moneys, which a previous administrator of the same estate has. improperly received, and which do not belong to the estate. It is too well settled to require the citation of authority, that an administrator cannot by any act of his create a right of action against the estate he represents, however he may subject himself to personal liability. If he enter into a contract, or give' a note,- as administrator, the estate is not bound, but himself individually, upon such contract or promise.

¶3Let the judgment be affirmed.

/19/ala/25 · .json · Public domain