Jackson v. Hough

Decision Date15 November 1893
PartiesJACKSON. v. HOUGH.
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

Assumpsit— Pleadings—Consideration for Contract— Limitation of Actions— Rulings on Evidence—Brokers—Who are.

1. On the facts the action was properly indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received, not for services rendered. The common count for money had and received was proper.

2. The action of assumpsit is an equitable action, and applicable to almost every case where money has been received by one, which in equity and conscience ought to be refunded or paid to another.

3. Where a plaintiff has done everything which has to be executed on his part, and nothing remains to be done but the performance of a duty on defendant'* part to pay money due the plaintiff under contract, the plaintiff may recover on the common counts in assumpsit, and need not declare specially.

4. On the facts the consideration was sufficient to render the defendant's promise enforceable.

5. Against a demand for money had and received by one for the use of another, the period under the statute of limitations is five, years, and it begins on the receipt of the money.

6. Where a question is not allowed to be answered by a witness, and the question does not itself import that its answer will prove a fact material, and it does not otherwise so appear, the refusal to allow it to be answered will not be ground of reversal.

7. One single sale of land for reward by one for another, taken alone, without any thing to show that the former professed to follow or practice the business of a broker, buying or selling for others stocks, securities, or other property for commission or reward, will not make him such broker, under section 2, c. 32, Code.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to circuit court, Marion county.

Action in assumpsit by Oliver Jackson against Thomas Hough. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

John W. Mason and U. N. Arnett, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

A B. Fleming, for defendant in error.

BRANNON, 3. Jackson brought assumpsit against Hough, recovered judgment, and Hough brought the case up by writ of error. Hough wanted to sell his farm. Jackson thought he could make something by selling it He knew Adams wanted to buy a farm, and, without knowledge or request of Hough, Jackson went to Adams, and negotiated with Adams a sale of the Hough farm for $6,000, payable in six bonds on Sharp-neck of $1,000 each, given to Adams. After this agreement between Jackson and Adams, Adams sent for Hough. Hough's price for his farm was $5,000. When Hough came, Jackson asked him whether he would take five $1,000 bonds on Sharpneck, indorsed by Adams, for his farm, and Hough answered that he would. Then for the first time Jackson told Hough that he had, without his knowledge, sold his farm over 30 days since for six notes of $1,000 each, and that he would do better by Hough than his first proposition; he would divide the proceeds of the last due Sharpneck bond, and Hough agreed to it. Jackson then caused a deed to be drawn from Hough to Adams, which was executed, and committed it to Jackson's hands, to be delivered to Adams when the transaction should be consummated, and Adams met Jackson, delivered to him the six Sharpneck notes, and received the deed. Adams assigned the notes not to any one by name, but simply indorsed his name on them. Hough was not present, and had no participation in the delivery of the notes and deed. It was between Jackson and Adams only. Hough needed the money, and hesitated to take notes for his farm, but he and Jackson concluding in their interview above mentioned that the notes could be discounted, Hough agreed to take them as above stated. After Jackson received the Sharpneck notes he handed them over to Hough, in order that Hough might have them discounted by a certain person named by Hough, who, as he thought, would buy them. Both Jackson and Hough tried to sell the Sharpneck notes. They made together a fruitless trip to Wheeling for the purpose. Finally Hough sold the last note. Learning this, Jackson demanded half its proceeds. Hough refused to pay. Jackson sued, and recovered a verdict and judgment tor half its proceeds.

For the appellant it is contended that, as the declaration, which contains only the common counts, contained no count for work, labor, and service, there could not properly be a recovery, as Jackson's claim, legally viewed most favorably to him, is for services in selling Hough's farm, and the agreement to pay half its proceeds to Jackson only a measure of compensation. If such were the character of Jackson's claim, this would be true. But I think his demand can properly be regarded as for half the proceeds of the sale of the last due Sharpneck note, —that is, for money received by Hough which he should ex aequo et bono pay Jackson, —and therefore recoverable under the count for money had and received by defendant for the use of the plaintiff. I regard the services as settled by the agreement to take half the proceeds of the note. Suppose, before sale of it, Jackson had sued on the quantum meruit for services only, could he recover, having agreed to take pay out of the note, and just half of its proceeds? After sale of it, could he sue only for services? If, on Hough's refusal to pay, Jackson might fall back on his services, it would be because Hough would be deemed to have repudiated that contract; and even then it would give Jackson election as to the form of his demand. He might sue for half the money for which the note sold....

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • State v. Clifford
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 1906
  • Lindlay v. Raydure
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • 3 Febrero 1917
    ... ... the lessee for a cancellation of the lease, and it was held ... that plaintiff was entitled to such relief. Judge Jackson ... thus stated the reasons for his conclusion: ... 'First, ... because the parties who claim under the lease * * * have, ... by the ... oil, chance of development which might yield Lovett ... returns, and promise to pay money made consideration ... Jackson v. Hough, 38 W.Va. 240, 18 S.E. 575. But ... aside from this there is valuable consideration.' ... Clearly, ... then, the Supreme Court of West ... ...
  • Wright v. Standard Ultramarine & Color Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 6 Diciembre 1955
    ... ... 669, 57 S.E. 258; Empire Coal and Coke Company v. Hull Coal and Coke Company, 51 W.Va. 474, 41 S.E. 917; Jackson v Hough, 38 W.Va. 236, 18 S.E. 575; Maloney v. Barr, 27 W.Va. 381; Davisson v. Ford, 23 W.Va. 617; Moore v. Supervisors of Wetzel County, 18 W.Va ... ...
  • Thornsbury v. Thornsbury
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 1963
    ... ... v. Bartlett, 62 W.Va. 700, pts. 5 and 6 syl., 59 S.E. 634; Kay v. Glade Creek & R. R. Co., 47 W.Va. 467, pt. 3 syl., 35 S.E. 973; Jackson v. Hough, 38 W.Va. 236, pt. 6 syl., 18 S.E. 575; Nease v. Capehart, 15 W.Va. 299, pt. 7 syl ... Page 722 ...         In the taking of ... ...
  • 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