Court Opinion

ID: 6123197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-04 20:11:24.896786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:18.406494
License: Public Domain

LeakNED, P. J.:
When the plaintiff paid up the mortgage to Dr. Carroll, he “ claimed it was not right and that there was not so much due.” He claimed that there had been an over-payment of $200 more than the doctor had credited him on the bond and mortgage. He said that he would pay the mortgage and would commence an action against the doctor to recover it ■ back. There was a dispute between the plaintiff and the doctor ffbout the amount *103due. And tbe plaintiff, when he paid the bond and mortgage, told the doctor that he would ascertain whether he had overpaid him, and if he had taken out of him more than was due, he would sue him.
This is the testimony of the plaintiff’s own witness, and it is not contradicted. Two or three days afterwards the plaintiff commenced this action. The plaintiff, therefore, when he paid the bond and mortgage, knew (or believed) that he was paying more than was owing. The very fact on which he now seeks to recover was known to him and insisted upon by him at that time, and he made the payment with the intention of suing to recover part of it back again. What he has since discovered (as he claims) is not the fact that $200 more than was credited had been paid, but only the means of proving that fact.
Ignorance of a fact is one thing; ignorance of the means of proving a fact is another. When money voluntarily paid is recovered back, it is because there was a mistake as to some fact. But here the plaintiff was not mistaken as to the fact. Only at the time he did not know how to prove it. The subsequent discovery of evidence to prove a fact, known to the party when he makes the payment, cannot authorize a recovery back of the money. Such a principle would be most dangerous.
I think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Bocees, J., concurred; BoaedMAN, J., dissented.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.