indebitatus assumpsit
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 301 U.S. 532 - Stone v. White · 1937Most cited · 921 citing opinions
The action, brought to recover a tax erroneously paid, although an action at law, is equitable in its function. It is the lineal successor of the common count in indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received. Originally an action for the recovery of debt, favored because more convenient and flexible than the common law action of debt, it has been gradually expanded as a medium for recovery upon every form of quasi-contractual obligation in which the duty to pay money is imposed by law, independently of contract, express or implied in fact.
How the Supreme Court has restated “indebitatus assumpsit”
Each Supreme Court definition of “indebitatus assumpsit,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “indebitatus assumpsit”
Court decisions citing the 8 opinions that defined “indebitatus assumpsit” — 1,522 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 8 definitions, chronological · 1813–1937
- ORIGINAL
We take it to be incontrovertibly settled, that indebitatus assumpsit will lie to recover the stipulated price due on a special contract, nor under seal, where the contract has been completely executed; and that it is not in such case necessary to declare upon the special agreement.
on executed special contract
if the contract was wholly performed by the plaintiff during the lifetime of [the principal]; if its farther execution was put an end to, before its completion, by the act of [the principal], or by the agreement of both parties, then the plaintiff was not precluded from recovering in this action. Nay, further, if the contract was fully performed in relation to any one subject covered by it... the plaintiff might well maintain an action of indebitatus assumpsit for his stipulated compensation
after special contract closed
if the other party has derived any benefit from the labor done, it would be unjust to allow him to retain that without paying anything. The law, therefore, implies a promise on his part to pay such a remuneration as the benefit conferred is really worth; and to recover it, an action of indebitatus assumpsit is maintainable.
Indebitatus assumpsit is founded upon what the law terms an implied promise on the part of the defendant to pay what in good conscience he is bound to pay to the plaintiff. Where the case shows that it is the duty of the defendant to pay, the law imputes to him a promise to fulfil that obligation. But the law never implies a promise to pay unless some duty creates such an obligation, and more especially it never implies a promise to do an act contrary to duty or contrary to law.
Indebitatus assumpsit is founded upon what the law terms an implied promise on the part of the defendant to pay what in good conscience he is bound to pay to the plaintiff. Where the case shows that it is the duty of the defendant to pay, the law imputes to him a promise to fulfil that obligation. Such a promise to pay, however, will never be implied unless some duty creates such an obligation, nor will the law ever imply a promise to do an act contrary to law or in violation of a public duty.
Indebitatus assumpsit is founded upon what the law terms an implied promise on the part of the defendant to pay what, in good conscience, he is bound to pay to the plaintiff, but the law will not imply a promise to pay unless some duty creates such an obligation, and it never will sustain any such implication in a case where the act of payment would be contrary to duty or contrary to law.
Indebitatus assumpsit is founded upon what the law terms an implied promise on the part of the defendant to pay what in good conscience he is bound to pay to the plaintiff, consequently where the case shows that it is the duty of the defendant to pay, the law imputes to him a promise to fulfil that obligation.