Legal Opinion
Haupt v. Horovitz
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided November 23, 1923No. 14537PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. “An action for money had and received lies in all cases where another has received money which the plaintiff, ex aequo et bono, is entitled to recover and which the defendant is not entitled in good conscience to retain.” Zapf Realty Co. v. Brown, 26 Ga. App. 443 (106 S. E. 748); Whitehead v. Peek, 1 Ga. 140 (3); Knight v. Roberts, 17 Ga. App. 527 (87 S. E. 809). In such an action “the law implies a promise on the part of any person who has received the money of another to pay that person on demand. The reception of money by one and the demand by" the other makes all the privity that is…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Citizens Bank v. RudisillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Whitehead v. PeckSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Bates-Farley Savings Bank v. DismukesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Central Railroad v. First National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
- Kenney v. WaldenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Dobbs v. PerlmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Fain v. NealCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
- Reardon v. BlandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Bob Parrott, Inc. v. First Palmetto BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Jasper School District v. GormleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.