West v. Houston
Opinion
Cullen, for defendants, moved a nonsuit, on the ground that money paid by a person under mistake of law; or for want of noticing a fact within his knowledge or power, cannot be recovered back in this action. (2 East. Rep. 468; 1 Eng. C.L. Rep. 43; 1 Dallas Rep. 147; 9 Cowen 674; 1 Esp.N. P. C. 84, 279; 2 Ibid 546; 2 Johns. Ch. R. 51, 60; 13 Eng. C. L. R. 323-5, 293; 1 Wend. R. 355; Smith'sLeading Cases 174; 2 Hall's N. Y. Rep. 252; 3 Wend.Rep. 69, 72.)
Houston, contra, said that the payment was made under a mistake of fact, and could be recovered back. Most of the cases cited, arose under mistake of law. (13 Eng. C. L. R. 293; 1 Leigh. N.P. 54.) The plaintiff in this case was misled by the costs being taxed as if an affidavit had been filed. (1 Steph. N. P. 347-8; 2 East Rep. 469.)
The Court ordered a nonsuit. Where there is a payment in ignorance or mistake of a fact, it may be recovered back, unless the mistake arises from the negligence of the party to examine and take notice of information within his full means of knowledge. Here the plaintiff was party to the very record of the judgment which he was paying, which record showed the fact he now alledges he was ignorant of.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
4 Del. 170 (West v. Houston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.