McArthur v. Luce

• Decision Date: 28 April 1880
• Citation: 43 Mich. 435,5 N.W. 451
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MCARTHUR v. LUCE and others.

5 N.W. 451

43 Mich. 435

MCARTHUR v. LUCE and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 28, 1880

Where a claim is made against one who, not relying upon the representation made, examines the facts himself, assents to their correctness, and pays money on the strength thereof, he cannot, on discovering that it was a mistake, recover the money so paid, but the settlement will be deemed final.

Error to Alpena.

Kelley & Clayberg, for plaintiff in error.

Turnbull & McDonald, for defendants in error.

MARSTON, C.J.

Luce &amp Co., in demanding that McArthur pay them for logs cut, as they supposed, upon their land, acted in entire good faith. They had a survey made, and according thereto the plaintiff had cut logs over the line. When the claim was made upon the plaintiff he employed a surveyor and they went upon the land and defendant then became satisfied that he had cut and taken logs from off defendants' land, and authorized a settlement to be made, which was done. This was in 1871, and all parties rested in the belief that a correct settlement had been until some time in 1875 when a new survey established the fact that no logs had been cut upon defendants' land, and this action was brought to recover back the moneys paid, upon the claim of having been paid under a mistake of fact.

Where a claim is thus made against another, who, not relying upon the representation of the claimant, has the opportunity to and does investigate the facts, and thereupon becomes satisfied that the claim made is correct, and adjusts and pays the same, I think such settlement and payment should be considered as final. If not, it is very difficult to say when such disputed questions could be considered as finally settled, or litigation ended. In the settlement of disputed questions, where both parties have equal opportunity and facilities for ascertaining the facts, it becomes incumbent on each to then make his investigation, and not carelessly settle, trusting to future investigation to show a mistake of facts and enable him to recover back the amount paid. One course encourages carelessness and breeds litigation after witnesses have passed beyond the reach of the parties; the other encourages parties in ascertaining what the facts and circumstances actually are while the transaction is fresh in the minds of all, and a final and peaceful settlement thereof. Detroit Advertiser & Tribune Co. v. Detroit, 5 N.W.REP. 72; 2 Mich....