Court Opinion

ID: 6634269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:39:08.831784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:02.102607
License: Public Domain

Ohristianoy J.
If the plaintiffs were merely the agents of Hooker in the collection of the note falling due in February, upon which the overpayment of $200 was made in May following, and this surplus payment was received by them without being aware of the mistake made by the defendant and the Bank of St. Johns, and they, in good faith, and in ignorance of the mistake, paid the amount over to Hooker, their principal, we think it entirely clear the defendants would have no right of action against these agents for the amount thus overpaid, but must seek their remedy against Hooker, the principal, who received the money. And, for the same reason, they would be precluded from setting up, in payment or off-set, this amount against these plaintiffs if the latter were the owners of the note upon which the present action was brought; and especially if they obtained the note in good faith before due, and before the overpayment in question passed through their hands to Hooker.
Now, all the evidence offered by the plaintiffs and rejected by the court, tended to show just the state of facts here supposed, which, if satisfactorily established, would have constituted a full answer to the claim of defendants against the plaintiffs for this amount. All the evidence offered was, therefore, erroneously rejected.
The finding of the court was also erroneous, on the same ground, in holding that these facts would not constitute a sufficient answer to the claim of the defendants.
The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and a new trial awarded.
The other Justices concurred.