Gould v. Emerson

Decision Date11 January 1894
Citation35 N.E. 1065,160 Mass. 438
PartiesGOULD v. EMERSON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

Lem Le B. Holmes, for appellant.

Henry J. Fuller, for appellee.

OPINION

ALLEN J.

There was a plain mistake in the giving of the note for $10,000 to the defendant. It should have been for only $5,000. There was no fraud, but it was a case of mutual mistake as to the manner of carrying out what had been settled and agreed on. Upon dissolving the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff was to take the goods on hand, and pay the defendant for his interest therein. The value of the goods was fixed at $16,000, and the plaintiff gave to the defendant his note for $8,000, and this has been paid. There was no mistake as to this. But the plaintiff had withdrawn from the funds of the firm $10,000 more than the defendant had, and to make this right between the parties the plaintiff would have to restore the $10,000 to the firm, or pay the defendant for his share thereof, which would be $5,000. Instead of doing this, by sheer inadvertence or ignorance of what is plain when you come to look at it carefully, the plaintiff gave his note for $10,000 to the defendant. This gave to the defendant the whole of a sum which belonged to the firm, and which he was entitled to only one-half of. The mistake, though gross, was mutual and innocent; and the plaintiff, at any time, upon discovering it, might have had a bill in equity for relief against it. Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass 290, 319, 320; Canedy v. Marcy, 13 Gray, 373; Wilcox v. Lucas, 121 Mass. 21; Goode v Riley, 153 Mass. 585, 28 N.E. 228; Beauchamp v Winn, L.R. 6 H.L. 223; Daniell v. Sinclair, 6 App.Cas. 181, 190, 191; Paget v. Marshall, 28 Ch. Div. 255. And, though the contract has been executed, a court of equity may grant relief, and decree repayment of money so paid by mistake. Tarbell v. Bowman, 103 Mass. 341; Wilson v. Randall, 67 N.Y. 338; Paine v. Upton, 87 N.Y. 327.

The defendant relies on the statute of limitations. The bill was brought January 28, 1893. One payment of $500 on the principal of the note was made more than six years before that date, but that payment should be applied on the sum rightfully due to the defendant. One payment of $300 for interest was made more than six years before that date, and $150 of this would properly be appropriated to the interest on the sum rightfully due as principal. This leaves only $150 to be affected by the question of the statute of limitations. Where a mistake is to be corrected by a court of equity, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the time when the mistake was discovered, or at any rate till the time when, by the use of due diligence, it ought to have been discovered. It was not, in fact, discovered till about November 1, 1892, and on the facts which are found in the report of the case no earlier date can be fixed for the commencement of the time of the running of the statute. Wells v. Child, 12 Allen, 333, 335; Brooksbank v. Smith, 2 Younge & C. 58; Ecclesiastical Com'rs v. Northeastern Railway, 4 Ch.Div. 845, 860; Thomas v. Bartow, 48 N.Y. 193; Story, Eq.Jur. § 1521a.

The defendant also relies on the defense of laches, but the justice of the superior court who heard the case and saw the parties was of the opinion that the plaintiff was not guilty of laches, and we see no reason to differ from him. Tarbell v. Bowman, 103 Mass. 341; Beauchamp v. Winn, L.R. 6 H.L. 223.

Upon the facts already referred to, the relief to which the plaintiff would be entitled would be to have his original note of $10,000, upon which he has paid $6,000, surrendered and canceled, and to have the overpayment of 1,000 refunded and also to have the interest refunded which he has paid in excess of the interest due on the $5,000 which he justly owed. The $10,000 note should be treated as valid for $5,000, and all payments of principal or interest in excess of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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