Legal Opinion

Mills v. Bailey

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 28, 1898PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBryan, J.

The only question in this case arises on an exception to the admissibility of certain evidence. Bailey brought an action of assumpsit for money had and received against Mills, administrator of Sallie J. Bailey. The principles of the action for money had and received have been well established ever since the origin of the action. It lies to recover money in the possession of the defendant which in justice and conscience belongs to the plaintiff. The uniform language of the law has been that where ex aequo et bono money ought to be paid, a promise to pay it will be implied, and this implied…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Benesch v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
  2. Wellersburg & West Newton Plank Road Co. v. BruceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Goodman v. SapersteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
  2. Bartlett v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1932
  3. Vincent v. PutnamNew York Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Lednum v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  5. Lupton v. American Wholesale Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1923

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API