Bilbie against Lumley and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1802 |
| Date | 28 June 1802 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 448
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Distinguished, Hales v. Freeman, 1819, 4 Moore, 21. Discussed, Smith v. Alsop, 1824, 13 Price, 825.
bilbie against lumley and others. Monday, June 28th, 1802. Money paid by one with full knowledge (or the means of such knowledge in his hands) of all the circumstances cannot be recovered back again on account of such payment having been made under an ignorance of the law. [Distinguished, Hales v. Freeman, 1819, 4 Moore, 21. Discussed, Smith v. Alsop, 1824, 13 Price, 825.] This was an action for money had and received, and upon other common counts, which was brought by an underwriter upon a policy of insurance in order to recover back 1001. which he had paid upon the policy as for a loss by capture to the defendants the assured. The ground on which the action was endeavoured to be sustained was that the money was paid under a mistake, the defendants not having at the time of the insurance effected disclosed to the underwriter (the present plaintiff) a [470] material letter which had been before received by them relating to the time of sailing of the ship insured. It was not now denied that the letter was material to be disclosed ; but the defence rested on now and at the trial was that before the loss on the policy was adjusted, and the money paid by the present plaintiff, all the papers had been laid before the underwriters, and amongst others the letter in question : and therefore it was contended at the trial before Booke J. at York, that the money having been paid with full knowledge, or with full means of knowledge of all the circumstances, could not now be recovered back again. On the other hand it was insisted that it was sufficient to sustain the action that the money had been paid under a mistake of the law; the plaintiff not being apprized at the time of the payment that the concealment of the particular circumstance disclosed in the letter kept back was a defence to any action which might have been brought on the policy: and the learned Judge being of that opinion, the plaintiff obtained a verdict. (a)1 Cowp. 129. (b) 2 Term Rep. 749. (a)2 But such lessee may maintain trespass upon his mere possession against a wrong doer. Graham v. Peat, ante, 1 vol. 244. 2 EAST, 471. BILBIE V. LTJMLEY 449 A rule nisi was granted in the last term for setting aside the verdict and having a new trial; which was to have been supported now by Park for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Management Corporation Strata Title No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd
...Air Canada v British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 1161; (1989) 59 DLR (4th) 161 (refd) Beale v Kyte [1907] 1 Ch 564 (refd) Bilbie v Lumley (1802) 2 East 469; 102 ER 448 (not folld) Borneo Motors (S) Pte Ltd v William Jacks & Co (S) Pte Ltd [1992] 2 SLR (R) 419; [1992] 2 SLR 881 (distd) British Sou......
-
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Woolwich Equitable Building Society
...BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No.2) ELR[1983] 2 AC 352 Barton v Armstrong ELR[1976] AC 104 Bilbie v Lumley ENRENR(1802) 2 East 469; 102 ER 448 Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co v Bispham with Norbreck UDCELR[1910] 1 KB 592 Brocklebank (T & J) Ltd v The King ELR[1924] 1 KB 647 Brow......
-
BP Plc v Aon Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
...Corp v Litton Industries IncECAS(1976) 532 F 2d 1. Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite LtdELR[1951] 2 KB 314. Bilbie v LumleyENR(1802) 2 East 469; 102 ER 448. Calico Printers' Association v Barclays Bank(1931) 145 LT Caparo Industries plc v DickmanELR[1990] 2 AC 605. Combe v CombeELR[1951] 2 KB 215......
-
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Attorney General
...rule money is not recoverable on the ground that it was paid under a mistake of law. This principle was established in Bilbie v Lumley (1802) 2 East 469. It has however been the subject of much criticism, which has grown substantially during the second half of the present century. The princ......
-
Change of position and restitution for wrongs: 'ne'er the twain shall meet'?
...was typically actionable only if the mistake was one of fact and not simply a mistake of law: see, eg, Bilbie v Lumley (1802) 2 East 469; 102 ER 448. This restriction was abolished in Australia by David Securities (1992) 175 CLR 353, 385 (Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh (85) Lip......
-
The Development of the High Court's Willingness to Overrule Common Law Precedent
...OVERTURNED David Securities v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 Restitution: mistake of law Bilbie v Lumley (1802) 2 East 469 (102 ER 448) held to be no longer part of Australian law. Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307 Tort Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith (1966)......
-
Table of Cases
...60 D.L.R. (4th) 30, [1989] B.C.J. No. 1032 (C.A.) ........................................ 285 Bilbie v. Lumley (1802), 2 East 469, 102 E.R. 448 .............................................. 256 Blake v. Minister of Correctional Services (1984), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2417 (Ont. Bd. Of Inquiry) ..........
-
The Rise and Fall of the Mistake of Law Rule
...(5"' Ed., Sweet and Maxwell, 1998), at 213: "few subjects are more confused than recovery of money paid under a mistake of law." 2 (1802) 2 East 469; 102 ER 448. © 2000 Erik Gannon and Dublin University Law Society Introduction [Vol. 3 Trinity College Law Review defendants who failed to dis......