Mathers v. Pearson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county in this suit, the case appeared to be as follows: The plaintiff below, and plaintiff in error, William Mathers, administrator of Thomas Mathers, deceased, brought this action of indebitatus assumpsit against Bevan Pearson, the defendant below, and defendant in error, to recover.back the sum of one hundred dollars, which Thomas Mathers, in his life time had paid to the defendant on the purchase from him…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county in this suit, the case appeared to be as follows: The plaintiff below, and plaintiff in error, William Mathers, administrator of Thomas Mathers, deceased, brought this action of indebitatus assumpsit against Bevan Pearson, the defendant below, and defendant in error, to recover.back the sum of one hundred dollars, which Thomas Mathers, in his life time had paid to the defendant on the purchase from him of a judgment in a foreign attachment obtained by Matthew Nelson against Edward, White, administrator of Isaiah…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, J.
There is a class of cases in which an action can be maintained only on the contract, as where a chattel is sold with*259out a stipulation to rescind the contract in case it should turn out ,to be'different from what it is represented to be: there the contract- remains open and the remedy is on the warranty, if there be any. But it is clear that money received mala fide or by deceit, may‘be recovered back in an action for money had and received. So where there has been no fraud, but the title of the vendor has been found to be defective: as in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Thomas v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Hills v. KernionSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844