Cheever v. Smith

15 Johns. 276
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1818
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 15 Johns. 276 (Cheever v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cheever v. Smith, 15 Johns. 276 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1818).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that evidence of a mistake in the accounts of Smith and Pardee with Allen was properly rejected. The alleged mistake took place in October, 1814, and in July, 1815, the plaintiff settled with Allen, when there appeared to be due to the latter 4156 dollars and 6 cents, allowing him the 5,000 dollars, in respect of which the mistake is alleged to have been committed. On that settlement the sum of 4,156 dollars and 6 cents, which appeared to be due to Allen, was paid to him.

Now, had the defendants given notice of that mistake to the plaintiff, he would have made the settlement on very different principles; at all events, he would not have paid Allen, until the fact, whether there had been a mistake or not, was ascertained. If a man deals with another’s agent, and gives the agent a receipt for a sum of money which he had a right to pay, and on the faith of that receipt the principal settles with his agent, and pays him money, the party giving the receipt cannot lie by, until after the settlement between the principal and the agent, and then charge the principal with the payment of the same sum again. Good faith requires that the mistake should be communicated to the principal as soon as it is known ; and, indeed, if a loss is to be borne, it must fall on him who occasioned it. In the present instance, it is not stated that Allen is irresponsible. That fact makes no difference, for he is answerable to the defendants as for money had and received, if it can be shown that he has been allowed 10,000 dollars, as paid to the defendants, when only 5,000 dollars were received by them. The case of Wyatt v. The Marquis of Hertford, (3 East’s Rep. 147.) supports the principle of this decision.

Motion for a new trial denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

English v. Rauchfuss
21 Misc. 494 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Schepflin v. Dessar
20 Mo. App. 569 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Berwind v. Schultz
25 F. 912 (S.D. New York, 1885)
Lear v. Friedlander
45 Miss. 559 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1871)
Starkweather v. Cleveland Ins.
22 F. Cas. 1091 (N.D. Ohio, 1870)
Davis v. . Allen
3 N.Y. 168 (New York Court of Appeals, 1849)
Macy v. DeWolf
16 F. Cas. 353 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1847)
Leland v. Medora
15 F. Cas. 298 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1846)
Muldon v. Whitlock
1 Cow. 290 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Johns. 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheever-v-smith-nysupct-1818.