Case Name: HALLETT v. NEW ENGLAND ROLLER GRATE CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1903-01-07
Citations: 119 F. 873
Docket Number: No. 376
Parties: HALLETT v. NEW ENGLAND ROLLER GRATE CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 119
Pages: 873–873

Head Matter:
HALLETT v. NEW ENGLAND ROLLER GRATE CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
January 7, 1903.)
No. 376.
1. Action fob Money Paid—Laches as Defense.
In an action at law for money had and received, to recover a sum paid in a transaction which was void, where limitation is not pleaded as a defense the court is not authorized to direct a verdict for defendant on the ground that there was unreasonable delay in bringing the suit.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
For opinion below, see 105 Fed. 217.
Fred H. Williams (Frank M. Copeland, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Walter. C. Harriman (Isaiah R. Clark, on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and ALDRICH and BROWN, District Judges.
¶ 1. See Limitation of Actions, vol. 33, Cent. Dig. § 678.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This was an action for money had and received; wherein the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $3,000 paid by him upon a transaction which was void under the provisions of the Public Statutes of New Hampshire. There was no plea of the statute of limitations, and therefore there was, in our opinion, no question of unreasonable delay in bringing suit. The circuit court, therefore, erred in directing a verdict for the defendant upon the ground of unreasonable delay.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, with costs to the plaintiff in error.