Rabinowitz v. People's Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 26 February 1920 |
| Citation | 126 N.E. 289,235 Mass. 102 |
| Parties | RABINOWITZ v. PEOPLE'S NAT. BANK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Charles U. Bell, Judge.
Action by Jacob Rabinowitz against the People's National Bank. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.S. T. Lakson, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Lee M. Friedman, Louis B. King, and Friedman & Atherton, all of Boston, for defendant.
On September 13, 1917, one Cohen assigned certain accounts which were then due him for goods sold, to the plaintiff as security for a loan of $1,000, of which $573 has been paid. No notice was given the debtors of this assignment. On October 4, 1917, Cohen assigned the same accounts to the defendant, as security for a loan which he then obtained; the defendant collected $600 on the accounts. This action is for money had and received, to recover $427. In the superior court there was a directed verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.
Although the assignment to the plaintiff was earlier in time than the one to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover for money had and received. There was a valid consideration for the later assignment. It does not appear that the defendant knew of the one to the plaintiff and there is no suggestion of bad faith; it did not receive the money as the plaintiff's agent or in his behalf; it was received in its own right as the assignee of the chose in action. An action for money had and received lies to recover money which should not in justice be retained by the defendant and which in equity and good conscience should be returned to the plaintiff. The right to recover does not depend upon privity of contract, but on the obligation to restore that which the law implies should be returned, where one is unjustly enriched at another's expense. Claflin v. Godfrey, 21 Pick. 1, 6; Farmer v. Arundel, 2 Wm. Bl. 824.
As the money was received from the debtors by the defendant as its own, in good faith, without notice of the prior assignment, under an instrument duly executed for a good consideration and purporting to assign the accounts receivable, the plaintiff cannot recover in this action. Cole v. Bates, 186 Mass. 584, 72 N. E. 333;Lawrence v. Batcheller, 131 Mass. 504;Rand v. Smallidge, 130 Mass. 337;Moore v. Moore, 127 Mass. 22.
[3] We therefore do not consider it necessary to discuss the question whether the plaintiff comes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salem Trust Co v. Manufacturers Finance Co, 74
...the first assignee. Herman v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 218 Mass. 181, 105 N. E. 450, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 822; Rabinowitz v. People's National Bank, 235 Mass. 102, 126 N. E. 289.6 It would be unconscionable to permit him to prevail over a later assignee whom he had misled or deceived in respe......
-
Nichols v. Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation
...to the inquiry, whether the defendant holds money, which ex aequo et bono belongs to the plaintiff.’' See Rabinowitz v. People's National Bank, 235 Mass. 102, 103, 126 N.E. 289. The denial of recovery of an overpayment on equitable grounds even if these grounds include voluntary payment of ......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Harvard Trust Co.
... ... 168] in the Labbe case relied upon Prairie State Nat. Bank of Chicago v. United States, 164 U.S. 227, 17 S.Ct. 142, 41 L.Ed ... See Rabinowitz v. People's Nat. Bank, 235 Mass. 102, 103-104, 126 N.E ... Page 680 ... ...
-
Riley v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Duplication Mgmt., Inc.)
...and is often styled as money that should be returned “where one is unjustly enriched at another's expense.” Rabinowitz v. People's Nat'l Bank, 235 Mass. 102, 126 N.E. 289, 290 (1920). Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim with the same elements save that it is not limited to enrichment by......