Newell v. . March
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Davia County, at the Fall Term, 1847, his Honoi Judge Pearson, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received — plea non assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Davia County, at the Fall Term, 1847, his Honoi Judge Pearson, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received — plea non assumpsit. On the trial it appeared, that the plantiffhad obtained a judgment in the County Court of Davie against one Samuel Newell for $2016 10-100, with interests and costs, an^ that an execution oí fieri facias was issued thereon returnable to August Term 1842, which was placed in the defendant’s hands, as sheriff, and was by him levied on a house and lot, belonging to the defendant in the execution, but he…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
It is the settled law of England, and has been so considered ever since the case of Harriot v. Hampton, 7 Term Rep. 265, that where money has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant under the compulsion of a recovery at law, which is afterwards discovered not to have been due, the plaintiff cannot recover it back in an action for money had and received. The rule is necessary to prevent the repeated and protracted litigation of the same matter ; it being better that one person should occasionally suffer the wrong and inconvenience of paying- an unjust claim, than that every person should…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Simms v. . VickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Worth v. . StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898