Ketch v. Smith
| Citation | 161 A. 300 |
| Parties | KETCH v. SMITH. |
| Decision Date | 08 July 1932 |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Aroostook County.
Action by Israel Ketch against B. S. Smith. Verdict in favor of plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions sustained.
Argued before PATTANG ALL, a J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, and THAXTER JJ.
W. P. Hamilton, of Caribou, for plaintiff.
C. M. Fowler, of Fort Fairfield, for defendant.
This case is before us on exceptions by the defendant to a ruling by the presiding justice ordering a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $292.43.
The plaintiff was the owner of a Holmes note given by S. B. Schriver and Thelma Schriver to F. E. Peterson and secured by a lien on an automobile for which the note was taken in payment. The plaintiff, having taken possession of the car, started foreclosure. The makers of the note were sued on another note by L. S. Bean Company, who caused the automobile to be attached by this defendant a deputy sheriff, as the property of the Schrivers on the premises of this plaintiff. The defendant at that time informed the plaintiff that L. S. Bean Company had given him the money to pay the balance due on the mortgage, and the defendant took this money, from his pocket, but the plaintiff refused to talk with him. The plaintiff, after the sixty days had expired within which his foreclosure would ordinarily have been perfected, replevied the automobile. In this suit judgment was rendered for the defendant on the ground that at the time of the attachment there was still outstanding an equity of redemption, that the plaintiff had by his conduct waived a tender of the amount due on the mortgage, and that he had not given to the officer the required statutory notice which was a condition precedent to his bringing his action. Neither an exception nor motion was filed in the case, but another replevin action was brought which was decided in favor of the defendant on the ground that the question was res adjudicata. Exceptions were taken, and such decision was affirmed. Ketch v. Smith, 128 Me. 171, 146 A. 247. The facts clearly set forth in the opinion of the court in that case are made a part of the record here. The defendant, who was the attaching officer, returned the money to L. S. Bean Company from whom he had received it. Subsequently this action was brought by the same plaintiff for money had and received.
An action for money had and received lies when one has in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enercon v. Global Computer Supplies, Inc.
...action, but also has failed to allege satisfaction of the conditions precedent to maintenance of the correct one. See Ketch v. Smith, 131 Me. 275, 161 A. 300, 300 (1932) ("An action for money had and received lies when one has in his possession money which in equity and good conscience belo......
-
Campbell v. First American Title Ins. Co., No. 08-cv-311-P-S.
...is proper when `one has in his possession money in equity and good conscience belonging to another.'") (citing Ketch v. Smith, 131 Me. 275, 161 A. 300, 300 (1932)). ...
-
Richman v. Possibilities Counseling Servs., Inc.
...class held title or some other ownership interest, or that the Plaintiff class conferred a benefit upon Defendants. See Ketch v. Smith, 161 A. 300, 300 (Me. 1932) (money had and received); Estate of White, 521 A.2d1180, 1183 (Me. 1987) (unjust enrichment); Baizley v. Baizley, 1999 ME 115, ¶......
-
Treasures of Sea, Inc, v. Johnson
... ... has in his possession money in equity and good conscience ... belonging to another." Ketch v. Smith, 161 A ... 300, 300 (Me. 1932). See also Chapman v. Board of ... County Commissioners, 107 U.S. 348, 356 ... (1883) ... ...