Ingalls v. Miller
| Decision Date | 26 November 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,953 |
| Parties | Ingalls et al. v. Miller |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Madison Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
C. L Henry, H. C. Ryan, W. A. Kittinger and L. M. Schwinn, for appellants.
M. S Robinson and J. W. Lovett, for appellee.
Miller instituted a suit against Ingalls and another to recover a sum of money alleged to have been obtained from him by means of a conspiracy.
It is charged in the complaint that the defendants, one of whom was an attorney, falsely represented to the plaintiff, a mentally weak, illiterate, and infirm old man, that Ingalls had a meritorious cause of action against him, and that, unless the plaintiff settled and paid a sum of money demanded, suit would be instituted at once for a large amount, and that a judgment would be recovered against him, and that he would be subjected to costs, trouble and expense. It is alleged that by reason of the mental and physical infirmity of the plaintiff, he was induced to believe the false representations so made, and to pay the defendants the sum of $ 125, and that Ingalls had in fact no claim or cause of action against him whatever.
It is quite true, as appellant contends, that if one, with full knowledge of all the facts, voluntarily pays money in discharge of a demand unjustly made upon him, he can not afterwards recover the money back, even though he should protest at the time that he was not legally bound to pay it. Town of Ligonier v. Ackerman, 46 Ind. 552; City of Indianapolis v. Vajen, 111 Ind 240, 12 N.E. 311, and cases cited.
This is upon the principle that one who, with all the facts before him, and without any fraud, oppression or imposition, decides his own case against himself, can not afterwards appeal to the courts to reverse his own decision. Bond v. Coats, 16 Ind. 202.
This rule can not, however, be invoked to shield one who by means of false representations as to existing facts, has procured money from another who was ignorant of the true state of the facts, or who, on account of mental or physical debility, was incapable of comprehending or retaining the facts in his mind.
Where money is paid upon the supposition that a specific fact which it was supposed would entitle the other to maintain an action, is true, which fact is not true, an action will lie to recover the money back, "upon the ground that the plaintiff has paid money which he was under no obligation to pay, and which the party to whom it was paid had no right either to receive or to retain, and which, had the true state of the facts been present in his mind, at the time, he would not have paid." Guild v. Baldridge, 32 Tenn. 295; Lewellen v. Garrett, 58 Ind. 442; Brown v. College Corner, etc., G. R. Co., 56 Ind. 110; Cross v. Herr, 96 Ind. 96.
An illiterate, weak-minded old man is induced to believe that another has a cause of action against him, upon which one who professes to be a lawyer says he is about to bring suit. Upon the supposition that the facts were as represented a sum of money is paid in order to save himself from expensive, and, as it is made to appear to him, ruinous litigation. It is conceded now that the other had in fact no cause of action against him, and that he was, therefore, as we must assume, not about to involve him in expensive litigation. How can it be said that the money was paid with knowledge of the facts, and without fraud or imposition. Where one for the fraudulent purpose of inducing another to part with money or property, makes a statement of a fact, which is untrue, and thereby obtains money which he had no right to receive, and which it would be unconscionable for him to retain, he is guilty of fraud, even though he may not have known at the time that the statement was false. Bethell v. Bethell, 92 Ind. 318, and cases cited.
It is said that the plaintiff had no right to rely upon the mere representation that one of the defendants had a meritorious...
To continue reading
Request your trial