Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Ala. 46

Harper v. Claxton

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1878-12-15

Tried before Hon. Henry D. Clayton. The appellee, Rhoda Claxton, brought this action against tbe appellant, Robert Harper, to recover one hundred and fifty dollars. Tbe complaint originally contained four counts, but was amended by striking out all but tbe first count, which was a count for money had and received. Tbe other counts were for the failure to carry out a contract for the purchase of a horse.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1921

7 state decisions

40187818801890190019101920decided

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 →

BRICKELL, C. J.

¶1The complaint, as amended, contained a single count for money had and received. Such a count is appropriate for the recovery of money which the defendant may have in his possession of right belonging to the plaintiff. Privity of contract is not necessary to support the count. The law implies the promise to pay, whenever the defendant has money in his hands the property of the plaintiff, and which'the defendant has no legal right to retain. If the defendant expressly promises to pay, a breach of the promise entitles the plaintiff to recover only a sum certain, or capable of being rendered certain, and a common count is as appropriate for a recovery as a count stating the promise and its breach, unless the promise was conditional and dependent.

¶2Money paid on a contract which has been rescinded, is recoverable on a count for money had and received. — 2 Green. Ev. § 124. There may be no purpose or intention on the part of him who rescinds the contract to pay it, but if by his acts and conduct he induces the other party to believe that he will pay, he is bound to the same extent that he would be if he had in words expressly promised payment.

¶3This is in substance the charge of the court, and the judgment is affirmed.

/62/ala/46 · .json · Public domain