Manzy v. Hardy

• Decision Date: 21 June 1882
• Citation: 13 N.W. 12,13 Neb. 36
• Parties: MANZY v. HARDY.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

13 Neb. 36

13 N.W. 12

MANZY

v.HARDY.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed June 21, 1882.

Error to Lancaster district court.

J. H. Foxworthy, for plaintiff.

H. W. Hardy, for defendant.

LAKE, C. J.

Of the several errors formally assigned, the only really important one is whether the nonsuit was properly granted. The ground taken by counsel for the defendant in error in support of the ruling of the district court is that neither the petition nor the evidence shows that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatever. If this be so, of course the case was properly disposed of, and the judgment should be affirmed. The object of the action was to recover the sum of $75 and interest for a short time. The basis of this claim, as set out in the petition, is that the plaintiff had paid that amount to the defendant in part payment for a lot in the city of Lincoln, together with “the house thereon.” The only mistake mentioned is that of her “believing that the defendant had a valid deed and title, * * * when in fact and reality the said defendant had no legal right whatever to the said lot.” This is the whole substance of the complaint, and surely there is nothing here which shows the defendant to have been in the slightest degree responsible for the mistake under which the plaintiff says she made the payment. Even if money be paid to another under a mistake of fact, but for a valid consideration, in order to maintain an action for its recovery the party receiving it must be shown to have been in some way at fault and responsible for the mistake. For aught that the petition shows, the conduct of the defendant was commendable in every particular. But even if it were shown that the mistake complained of were caused entirely by the defendant, still no cause of action would be stated. It is not necessary that one should be possessed of a “legal title” to property in order to make it a good subject of bargain and sale. An equitable interest would answer the same purpose as a legal one. So, too, would a mere claim of right which might turn out to be no interest at all, either legal or equitable. Again, the mistake was only as to a part of the property. The purchase, as we have seen, was of a lot and “the house thereon.” It is not claimed that any mistake occurred respecting the house, the title to which seems to have been all that was expected, so that, even if there were any failure of consideration, it was only a partial one. We are of opinion that the...