Opinion ID: 1725011
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: There must be a connection between the enrichment and the resulting impoverishment.

Text: There was a causal connection between Mrs. Edmonston's impoverishment and A-Second's enrichment as our discussion demonstrates. When Mrs. Edmonston paid the balance due to Standard and the mortgage and note were cancelled, A-Second immediately became the beneficiary to the exact extent of the payment. Mrs. Edmonston's one act of payment therefore simultaneously enriched A-Second and impoverished her. Unless Mrs. Edmonston prevails here, A-Second gets a $24,100 home for $5,178.24 as a direct consequence of the payment. These facts meet the test which requires that It must be clear that the defendant would not have been enriched unless the plaintiff has been impoverished. Guttridge and David, The Doctrine of Unjustified Enrichment, 5 Cambridge L.Jour. 204, 214 (1933-35).