Claflin v. McDonough

Decision Date31 March 1863
Citation33 Mo. 412
PartiesWILLIAM CLAFLIN et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. JAMES MCDONOUGH, Defendant in Error.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

Henry Hitchcock, for plaintiffs in error.

It is not disputed that the law under which the tax claimed of plaintiffs and paid by them, as stated in the petition, was unconstitutional and void, so far as related to a part of the goods, &c., in respect of which such tax was imposed.

This being so, the demand made by defendant was without legal authority or justification, and the money was wrongfully received, and that with notice it would be sued for as illegally exacted.

It is a doctrine of the common law, absolutely universal, (as far as my researches extend,) that if a man by fraud, or wrong, or illegality, obtains, or exacts, or retains money justly belonging to another, with notice that the latter contests the right of the former to receive, or exact, or retain it, an action for money had and received lies to recover it back, and it is no answer for the wrong-doer to say that he has paid it over to his superior, &c., &c. (Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. U. S. 255; Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137; Bond v. Hoyt, 13 Pet. 263, 267; Ripley v. Gelston, 9 Johns. 201; Fry v. Lockwood, 4 Cow. 454.)

C. D. Drake, for defendant in error.

I. While it is admitted that the law under which the tax was paid was unconstitutional, (as has since been declared by the Supreme Court,) it is manifest from the petition that such was the plaintiffs' own view of it when they made the payment. They, therefore, not only know all the facts of the case, but also that, in law, they were not bound to pay the tax, and yet they paid it. There is no allegation of fraud or duress having been practised on them, and, in the absence of both these elements, it is well settled that no action lies to recover back the money. (Sheldon v. School District, 24 Conn. 88; Fellows v. School District, 39 Me. 559; Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill, 425; Baltimore & S. R. R. Co. v. Faunce, 4 Gill, 68; Tiffany v. Johnson, 27 Miss. 227; Downs v. Donnelly, 5 Ind. 496.)

II. There was no duress practised to coerce the payment. The collector had no legal authority to seize either the persons or goods of the plaintiffs, and they do not aver any attempt to do either. The only averment of any constraint is, that they were threatened with a criminal prosecution if they refused to pay.

1. They do not aver that they were threatened by the defendant.

2. A payment made under a threat of legal proceedings is not made by duress. (Kribbs v. Hall, 1 Esp. 84; Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill, 425.)

3. To constitute a payment by duress it must appear that there was an arrest of the body, or a seizure of property, or the conclusion must be justified that such an arrest or seizure could be avoided only by payment. (Smith v. Redfield, 27 Me. 145; Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill, 425; Mays v. Cincinnati, 1 Ohio, 268.)

III. The protest averred in the petition is of no moment; for where a payment is not made under duress of person or of goods, the protest gives no right to recover back the money. (Brown v. McKinnally, 1 Esp. 279; Fleetwood v. New York, 2 Sand. S. C. 475; Buckley v. Stewart, 1 Day, 130; Sheldon v. School District, 24 Conn. 88.)

BAY, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs brought suit to recover from defendant the sum of $1,494.60, paid by them to him as collector of the State and county revenue, for the county of St. Louis, as a tax upon a license issued to them as merchants.

The petition alleges, in substance, that defendant, as such collector, demanded of plaintiffs, (who were doing business under the name and firm of Claflin, Allen & Co.,) about the 4th of August, 1857, that the firm should take out a license to vend merchandise in said county, according to law, and further demanded, that, for the purpose of obtaining such license, said plaintiffs should pay to him, as such collector, a certain sum of money, as a tax imposed upon them as such merchants, and upon the aggregate amount of all goods, wares and merchandise, (except such which were the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, and unmanufactured articles the growth, or produce of other States,) purchased and received by said firm during the twelve months next preceding the first day of July, 1857, to-wit, the sum of $1,494.60, of which the amount $684.80 was demanded as a State tax, and $809.80 as a county tax; that plaintiffs, refusing to pay such tax, would have been liable to and were threatened with prosecution by indictment therefor, entailing heavy expense and loss in any event; and that, therefore, said plaintiffs, though deeming and declaring such tax illegal and unauthorized, and protesting against the collection and payment thereof as illegal, and against said demand of defendant, of all which they gave defendant notice in writing at the time, did pay said sum so demanded of them to defendant under protest, and with notice to him that such payment was under compulsion and to avoid prosecution, and they reserving their right in the premises to demand repayment of said sum. The petition further alleges that the defendant had no lawful right to demand or collect the said sum of money, or any part thereof; that the said tax, under color of which said demand was made and payment so compelled, was illegal and void.

To this petition the defendant demurred, and the demurrer was sustained, and judgment rendered for the defendant. Plaintiffs bring the case here by writ of error.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 cases
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 December 1943
    ...Mo. 207, 65 S.W. (2d) 1034; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 370; Baldwin v. Scott County Mill. Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W. (2d) 890; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412; Silverforb v. Bk., of Nashua, 233 Mo. App. 1239, 128 S.W. (2d) 1070; Kramer v. K.C.P. & L. Co., 311 Mo. 383, 279 S.W. 43; Natl. En.......
  • Chicago, Milwaukee, & Puget Sound Railway Company v. Bowman County
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 19 June 1915
    ...(St. Anthony & D. Elevator R. Co. v. Soucie) 9 N.D. 346, 50 L.R.A. 262, 83 N.W. 212; Preston v. Boston, 12 Pick. 7; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412, 84 Am. Dec. 54; Parcher v. Marathon Co. 52 Wis. 388, 38 Am. 745, 9 N.W. 23; Rumford Chemical Works v. Ray, 19 R. I. 456, 34 A. 814; Malin v. ......
  • Hablutzel v. Home Life Ins. Co. of New York
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 20 April 1933
    ...by the insured where there is no mutual mistake and no showing of fraud or duress. Pritchard v. Peoples Bank, 198 Mo.App. 598; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 415. Proof that the insured had become totally and permanently disabled is not presented by a mere oral conversation with an agent. At ......
  • Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 25 August 1925
    ... ... attachment against him could not form the basis of duress ... Wood v. Tel. Co., 223 Mo. 537; Dausch v ... Crane, 109 Mo. 323; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 ... Mo. 412; Holmes v. Hill, 19 Mo. 159; Ellis v ... First Natl. Bank, 260 S.W. 714; Murray Fixture Co ... v. Sullivan, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT