Classes Of Rights.- Receipt Of Money From Third Person. Continued
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Classes Of Rights.- Receipt Of Money From Third Person. Continued
10Lanford v. Lee, 119 Ala. 248; 72 Am. St. Rep. 914: 24 So. 578.
11 Milwaukee v. Milwaukee County. 114 Wis. 374: 90 N. W. 447.
12 Corey v. Webber, 96 Mich. 357;
55 N. W. 982; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 335; 56 Am. St. Rep. 586; 47 L. R. A. 737; 45 Pac. 218.
13 Bates-Farley Savings Bank v.
Dismrkes, 107 Ga. 212; 33 S. E. 175. "He chose the latter alternative; he saw fit to ratify the unauthorized collection by the defendant and the unauthorized payment by the association, and it does not now lie in the mouth of the defendant to say, when called upon to pay over to him the money which it unlawfully collected upon his and his assignor's claims against the building and loan association that his only remedy is against the association. . . . Under such circumstances the law implies a promise on the part of the defendant to pay the money over to the one who was entitled to receive it." Bates-Farley Savings Bank v. Dismukes, 107 Ga. 212, 218; 33 S. E. 175.
14 Fowler v. Savings Bank, 113 N. Y. 450; 10 Am. St. Rep. 479; 4 L. R. A. 145; 21 N. E. 172.
15 Fowler v. Savings Bank. 113 N. Y. 450; 10 Am. St. Rep. 479; 4 L. R. A. 145; 21 N. E. 172. The court said that a different result would have been reached had this been a special deposit.
16 Finch v. Park. 12 S. D. 63; 76 Am. St. Rep. 588; 80 N. W. 155.
17 Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238; 13 N. W. 42.
18Haebler v. Myers, 132 N. Y. 363; 28 Am. St. Rep. 589; 15 L. R. A. 588; 30 N. E. 963. The court said that such action could be maintained by "those who would have boon entitled to the money on the reversal of the order, provided it had not been paid to the defendants."
19 Coughlin v. McElroy, 74 Conn. 397: 92 Am. St. Rep. 224; 50 Atl. 1025.
20Cummings v. Synnott, 120 Fed.
84. This case impliedly holds that a right to money in equity does not always give a right to this action at law.
21 McDuffee v. Collins, 117 Ala. 487; 23 So. 45; Osborn v. Bell. 5 Den. (N. Y.) 370; 49 Am. Dec. 275; Hindmarch v. Hoffman, 127 Pa. St. 284; 14 Am. St. Rep. 842; 4 L. R. A. 368; 18 Atl. 14.
22 Hindmarch v. Hoffman, 127 Pa. St. 284; 14 Am. St. Rep. 842; 4 L. R. A. 368; 18 Atl. 14.
Continue to:
My Books
