Lazell v. Miller

15 Mass. 207
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1818
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 15 Mass. 207 (Lazell v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lazell v. Miller, 15 Mass. 207 (Mass. 1818).

Opinion

By the Court.

It appears that the money demanded in this action was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant under a mistake of fact, and he now claims the money so paid by him. Equity is wholly with the plaintiff. But the defendant objects that the judgment under which he received the money is still in full force, and that it is not competent to the plaintiff now to go into the merits of that judgment, or again to try that action. If the plaintiff had paid the rents and profits voluntarily, and without a suit, it will not be contended that he could not recover them back in this action, in the actual state of things. He has it not in his power to reverse that judgment by writ of error. Having a legal right to the money which he now demands, it would not be right to turn him over to his petition for a review. By awarding him the money he paid under a mistake of the facts, we do not violate any principle. The judgment was right, nor does the present action impeach it; but the defendant has no right, from posterior circumstances, to * retain the proceeds of it. And when one wrongfully detains money, although it was rightfully received, the action for money had and received furnishes a just and appropriate remedy. When the jury have ascertained the amount due to the plaintiff, he will be well entitled to judgment,

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

Related

E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Nourse
45 Mass. App. Dec. 188 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1971)
Spedoni v. Wood
3 Mass. App. Dec. 124 (Boston Municipal Court, 1951)
Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Paige
1 Mass. App. Div. 210 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)
Lowe v. Wells Fargo & Co.
96 P. 74 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1908)
Town of Ligonier v. Ackerman
46 Ind. 552 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Newman v. . Supervisors of Livingston Co.
45 N.Y. 676 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Collins v. State
13 Fla. 651 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1869)
People v. Bennett
37 N.Y. 134 (New York Court of Appeals, 1867)
The People v. . Bennett
37 N.Y. 117 (New York Court of Appeals, 1867)
Smith v. McCluskey
45 Barb. 610 (New York Supreme Court, 1866)
Elston v. City of Chicago
40 Ill. 514 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1866)
Gilchrist v. Comfort
26 How. Pr. 394 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Earle v. De Witt
88 Mass. 520 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1863)
Ewing v. Peck
26 Ala. 413 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1855)
Barron v. Chipman
4 Ga. 200 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1848)
In re Prime
1 Barb. 340 (New York Supreme Court, 1847)
Knox v. Abercrombie
11 Ala. 997 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1847)
Dupuy v. Roebuck
7 Ala. 484 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1845)
Claflin v. Godfrey
38 Mass. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1838)
Farmer v. Stewart
2 N.H. 97 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1819)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Mass. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazell-v-miller-mass-1818.