Case ID: scl_17/html/0023-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Moore v. The Executors of Vincent Edwards.
    Columbia,
    May, 1828.
    The word “satisfied,” indorsed on an execution, is not conclusive evidence that it has been paid; but it is competent for the plaintiff to shew that the indorsement was made by mistake, and that the execution, in fact, is not satisfied,
    Accident and mistake, though branches of equity jurisdiction, are not exclusively so, except where a discovery is indispensable, or the nature of the relief is such as to require the extraordinary aid of a court of equity.
    Tried before Mr. Justice James, at Fairfield, Fall Term, 1827.
    This was a scire facias to revive a judgment, recovered against the defendant’s testator, at November Term, 1823, for $1089 25, with interest and costs. The defendants pleaded payment. At the trial, on the production of the record, the word “ satisfied,” was found to have been indorsed on the execution. The plaintiff, to prove that this indorsement was erroneous, offered to go into evidence of the following facts: That on the 6th of February, 1824, Edwards paid the plaintiff the sum of $300, and obtained a receipt for that sum, and five days afterwards, paid the further sum of $305 ; that on the payment of the last sum, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the sheriff, acknowledging the receipt of $605 on account, and directing him to indulge Edwards for the residue ; that Edwards, in a month or two afterwards, called upon the sheriff to settle the execution in full, and producing the receipt of the 6th of February, claimed a credit thereon of $300, in addition to the $605 mentioned in the letter; and that the sheriff, not paying particular attention to the contents of the letter, but relying upon Edwards, allowed him a credit of 905, settled with him for the residue, and marked the execution satisfied ; whilst in fact $300, with interest from the date of the erroneous credit, were still due and unsatisfied. His Honor, the presiding Judge, held that the plaintiff was concluded by the record, and could only be relieved in equity. He, therefore, rejected the evidence, and ordered a nonsuit.
    The plaintiff now moved to set aside the nonsuit on the following grounds:
    1st. That he ought to have been permitted to prove the in-dorsement on the execution to have been erroneous.
    2d. That in the state of the pleadings the issue was one of fact, and it should have been left to the jury to determine whether the plea of payment was sustained by the evidence.
    
      Clarke, for the motion.
    Williams, contra.
    
   Johnson, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case of Sims et al, creditors of Rochelle, v. Campbell and Chambers, 1 McC. Ch. Rep. 52, is decisive of this. There the word “ satisfied” had been indorsed on the execution, and the defendants were let into proof that it was done by mistake. That too was in a contest involving priority of lien between creditors; and surely it is admissible as between the original parties. (2 Phil. Ev. 226.) It is true that was a case in the Court of Chancery, but I apprehend that where, by the rules of law, such evidence is not excluded, the rule in the two Courts is the same.

It would seem from the very concise report from the Circuit Court, that the ojfinion there turned upon the want of jurisdiction in the Court, and that the plaintiff could only be relieved in Chancery. Accidents and mistakes certainly constitute one branch of equity jurisdiction; but it is not peculiar, except when a discovery is indispensable, or the nature of the relief such as to require the extraordinary aid of Chancery. Actions at law to recover back money paid by mistake, constitute, in all the books of practice, a conspicuous class of causes, for which the action of assumpsit may be maintained at law; and there is no question that, in general, when the facts can be proved according to the rules of the Common Law, and the remedy is such as a Court of Law can administer, consistently, with the prescribed modes of proceeding, mistakes may be inquired into in a Court of Law.

In the case under consideration, the plaintiff sued out a sci. fa. to revive a judgment against the defendant, and as evidence of payment, the defendant produces an execution, on which is indorsed the word “ satisfiedthe plaintiff replies it was so indorsed by mistake. There is nothing magical in the term itself. The evidence offered, was admissible according to the rules of the Common Law, the relief was such as a Court of Common Law was competent to give, and the Court, therefore, clearly had jurisdiction.

Motion granted.