Thress v. Zempel
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Stark County. Defendant appeals. In an action for money had and received it is essential that plaintiff prove that the defendant actually received the money. 27 Cyc. 860; Borroughs v. Peterson (Utah) 114 Pac. 758; Abbott, Trial Ev. 2d ed. p. 337. “The action for money had and received will not lie against a party into whose hands the money is not shown to have come.” Whittier v. Home Sav.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Stark County. Defendant appeals. In an action for money had and received it is essential that plaintiff prove that the defendant actually received the money. 27 Cyc. 860; Borroughs v. Peterson (Utah) 114 Pac. 758; Abbott, Trial Ev. 2d ed. p. 337. “The action for money had and received will not lie against a party into whose hands the money is not shown to have come.” Whittier v. Home Sav. Bank (Cal.) 119 Pac. 92; Hoyt v. Paw Paw Grape Juice Co. (Mich.) 123 N. W. 529; J. C. LeClair Co. v. Rogers-Rogers Co. (Wis.) 102 N. W. 346. “Although trial…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This is an action to recover $700 for money had and received. The answer is a general denial. The jury found a verdict for defendant. The court made an order granting a new trial, and defendant appeals.
In July, 1912, Otto Thress being the owner of lots 4 and 5 in block 1 of New England, contracted to sell and convey the same to C. N. Murphy for $900. In August, 1912, to secure $156.50, Murphy transferred the contract to defendant. He obtained a judgment of foreclosure under which sale was made, and he bid in the title and interest of Murphy for $261.93, subject to redemption within one year.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Thress v. ZempleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1919
- Thress v. ZempleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1919