Case ID: scl_4/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1807.
    John James v. Cavit’s Administrator.
    Assumpsit lies not to recover back money claimed as having been erroneously recovered by the defendant, in a judgment against the plaintiff in consequence of the plaintiff’s not being able to produce a receipt, which was afterwards found.
    Summary process, in Sumter District, before Bkevakd, J. The petition stated that the defendants had sued the plaintiff for certain goods, sold and delivered ; and that at the trial, the plaintiff had mislaid a receipt or release from Cavit, which he had given in his life, time, to the plaintiff, acknowledging satisfaction in full for the same goods, and was unable to produce the same, in consequence of which judgment had been obtained against him ; and that he had since found the said receipt, and therefore claimed to recover back the money, so unjustly recovered in the former action of the defendants against him. It appeared that the plaintiff had moved the court soon after the judgment had been obtained against him, which had been obtained in a summary way by petition and process, to open his judgment, and let him into his defence ; but Waties, J., who presided, refused to grant the motion.
    Simons, for the defendants in the present case,
    objected to the jurisdiction of the court, and insisted that the court could not overhaul the former judgment; and that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming money which had been duly recovered in a legal course; and that it was his own folly, or neglect, if he suffered a decree to pass against him for money which he had paid, and had a receipt for.
    Broun, for the plaintiff.
    The defendants have received money which ex cequo et bono they ought to refund ; and as no writ of error lies in this country, there is no other relief. A contract to refund may be implied, though the money was recovered by an adverse suit. This was decided in the case of Moses v. Macfarlen, 3 Burr. 1005. The remedy is founded on t&e equity of the case, quasi eos contractu, and is more particularly to be encouraged under the summary jurisdiction of this court, as the parties under the summary jurisdiction are intitled to the benefit of all such matters as would avail in a Court of Equity.
   The court

decreed in favor of the defendants, upon the ground that money recovered by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be recovered back in a new action, though the error or mistake in that judgment may be made manifest; and that the merits of a judgment cannot be examined into, and questioned in any original suit in the Court of Common Pleas. Till it is set aside, or reversed, it must be conclusive as to the subject matter of it, to all intents and purposes. This is the language of Lord Mansfield, in the case of Moses and Macfarlen. The ground of relief in that casé was not that the judgment was wrong, but'because the plaintiff could not avail himself of the matter on which his claim was found, ed, in his defence in the action against him ; because the court of conscience, which adjudged against him, had no cognizance of the collateral matter set up in his defence. That obstacle did not prevent the plaintiff, in this action, from, the benefit of his receipt in the action against him; and if he was unable, from accident or misfortune, to produce it on that occasion, this cfertainly is not the proper form of relief, if he is intitled to any. If he has been guilty of laches in the matter, he cannot be relieved at all. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus leges subveniunt.

The motion in this court, was on the ground of mistake as to the law, and was supported by Richaedson, of counsel, for. the plaintiff. But the court unanimously discharged the motion, and confirmed the determination of the District Court. Transit in rem judicatam.

Note, See 3 Johns. Rep. 157, Smith v. Lewis, and the cases cited, in point.