Remington Arms Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. Feeney Tool Co.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1921
• Citation: 97 Conn. 129,115 A. 629
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: REMINGTON ARMS UNION METALLIC CARTRIDGE CO. v. FEENEY TOOL CO.

115 A. 629

97 Conn. 129

REMINGTON ARMS UNION METALLIC CARTRIDGE CO. v. FEENEY TOOL CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 23, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John P. Kellogg Judge.

Action by the Remington Arms Union Metallic Cartridge Company against the Feeney Tool Company to recover money paid by mistake and under compulsion. Judgment on demurrer for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that between November 23 1916, and April 24, 1919, the plaintiff and defendant had mutual dealings and accounts, as the result of which the plaintiff became indebted to the defendant in the sum of $41,815.82, and no more; that during this period the plaintiff overpaid the defendant to the extent of $4,735.04, the overpayment being made involuntarily and under compulsion. The allegation as to compulsion is that an unsettled controversy existed between the parties as to the rate at which certain work done by the defendant was to be paid for, the defendant claiming that the sum of $4,735.04 remained due from the plaintiff; that the defendant instituted suit against the plaintiff for that amount, and directed the officer having the writ to attach the goods and estate of the defendant to the amount of $8,000, and that the plaintiff, to avert the threatened attachment, paid to the officer for the account of the defendant the demanded sum of $4,735.04. It is further alleged that only $1,071.89, of the demanded sum was due, and that the balance, $3,663.15, was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff under a mistake of its rights and under compulsion and coercion and to prevent the immediate seizure of its property and the shutting down of its entire plant, and that no part of the overpayment of $3,663.15 has been repaid, though duly demanded.

To this complaint the defendant demurred on the ground that it appeared from the complaint that the payment was voluntary that it did not appear to have been paid under compulsion, or because of mutual mistake, or because of any fraud or deception practiced upon the plaintiff, and that it did appear to have been paid in settlement of a good cause of action which was thereby adjusted and settled and accord and satisfaction made. The superior court sustained the demurrer on all grounds, and on the refusal of the plaintiff to plead over judgment was rendered for the defendant.

Raymond E. Hackett, of Stamford, for appellant.

John J. Cullinan, Jr., of Bridgeport, for appellee.

BEACH J.

The plaintiff's brief assumes erroneously that the complaint includes a cause of action for the recovery of money paid under a mistake. It is a necessary element of such a cause of action that the payment was made under a mistaken belief that the money was due to the payee, when in truth it was neither legally nor morally due, as when an executor pays a legacy in full, believing that the estate is solvent, when it is not or that the legacy is due to the payee under the terms of the will, when it is not. Mansfield v. Lynch, 59 Conn. 320, 22 A. 313, 12 L.R.A. 285; Northrop v. Graves, 19 Conn. 548, 50 Am.Dec. 264; Mills, Adm'r, v. Britton, 64 Conn. 4, 29 A. 231, 24 L.R.A. 536. No transaction of that kind is alleged. On the contrary, the complaint, which was filed nearly two years after the payment of the money, attempts to state a case of duress of goods,...