Case Name: Hart v. Smith
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1786-09
Citations: 1 Kirby 127
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hart v. Smith.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 127–133

Head Matter:
Hart v. Smith.
Action of indebitatus assumpsit is not sustainable for money bad and received, founded on a mistake in a settlement, on wbieb an acquittance is given, though a special action on the case, pointing out such mistake, is sustainable.
This was a general indebitatus assumpsit, for money bad and received.
Tbe case, from tbe pleadings, was tbis: — Tbe plaintiff being brigadier-general of a brigade of militia, ánd tbe defendant a colonel under bis command, received of tbe plaintiff tbe sum of £1,578 in bills of tbis state, to be applied to public use, and to account. On tbe 4th day of January 1783, tbe defendant rendered an account of tbe application of tbe moneys so received, and a settlement was made by tbe parties; tbe plaintiff gave to tbe defendant an acquittance from all demands on tbis account, and tbe defendant delivered to tbe plaintiff all bis vouchers and other papers relative to tbe matter: That by means of a double charge and misentry, two mistakes bad happened in tbe settlement, against tbe plaintiff, to tbe amount of £202 14s. 6d.
On demurrer, tbe question was, whether this general action of indebitatus assumpsit, is sustainable after a settlement and acquittance.
Judgment was for tbe defendant.

Opinion:
By Law,
C. J., Dyer, Sherman and Pitkin, JJ.
Tbe 'facts conceded by the pleadings, do not support this action, v- It appears by tbe pleadings, that tbe only money received l)y tbe defendant of tbe plaintiff, was a sum of state bills, which be received as a public officer, to pay over to the soldiers of bis regiment, for which be was accountable; and if be bad failed of performing his undertaking, the plaintiff's legal and proper remedy would have been an action of account: But the defendant having rendered his account to the plaintiff, to his acceptance, and tbe same having been settled by tbeir mutual agreement, and the defendant's vouchers delivered up to the plaintiff; the defendant relying wholly on the plaintiff's acquaintance for his security (as in his plea is alleged) he ought not to be subjected to the plaintiff's demand in this action, upon any supposed mistake in the settlement, which cannot be ascertained but by opening the whole account to a new examination and settlement.
This kind of action is a beneficial remedy in many cases, but ought not to be extended so far as to destroy the effect of all legal settlements and acquittances, made by agreement of the parties.' — If a mistake is made in settlement of an account, which appears from the face of the account itself, a special action of the case pointing out such mistake, may be sustained.