Lewis v Campbell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1849 |
| Date | 21 November 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 620
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 19 L. J. C. P. 130; 14 Jur. 396. Applied, Pettman v. Keble, 1850, 9 C. B. 710. Referred to, Banner v. Tottenham and Edmonton Building Society, [1899] 1 Q. B. 176.
620 LEWIS V. CAMPBELL 8C.B.S42, lewis v. campbell. Nov. 21, 1849. '[S. C. 19 L. J. C. P. 130 ; 14 Jur. 396. Applied, Pettmm v. Keble, 1850, 9 C. B. 710. Referred to, Banner v. Tottenham and Edmonton Building Society, [1899] 1 Q. B. 176.] A. being indebted to B., gave him an order upon C., his agent, who, upon its being presented, declined to pay it, but said he would set it off against a larger debt due from B. to one D., for whom 0. was authorised to collect debts. C. accordingly credited B. with the amount mentioned in the order, and debited the account of D. with that amount; and D. afterwards gave A. a letter of indemnity against any proceedings B. might take against him in respect of his debt. B. having subsequently sued A., and obtained judgment against him (the action being defended in A.'s name by D.), A. paid the amount, to avoid an execution:-Held, that the circumstances raised an implied request by D. to A. to pay the money ; and that the sum so paid, was recoverable against D. in an action for money paid by A. to D.'s use. This was an action of debt, for money paid, money had and received, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that she was never indebted. The cause was tried before Wilde, C. J., at the London sittings after Hilary term, 1848, when the material facts appeared to be, that the plaintiff, John William Lewis, being indebted to Richard Duke in 1121. 16s. 6d., gave him an order for payment of that sum, on Macdonald & M'Queen, who were agents to the plaintiff. When Duke presented the order for payment, Mac-[542]-donald & M'Queen, refused to pay the money, but told Duke that they would pay the amount to Mrs. Campbell, the defendant, for whom they were authorised to collect debts, in part payment of a debt of 3501., which the defendant claimed as due to her from Duke. Macdonald & M'Queen accordingly debited the plaintiff, and credited the defendant, with the amount of the order, and gave the plaintiff, on behalf, and in the name of, the defendant, on the 29th of August, 1843, a letter stating that the sum of 1121. 16s. 6d., owing by the plaintiff to Duke, being attached by her in the hands of the plaintiff's agents, she undertook to exonerate and bear him harmless against any steps which Duke might take against him in respect of that sum. These transactions were communicated to. the defendant, whe approved of what her agents had done, and claimed the amount mentioned in the order, as a debt due to her from Macdonald & M'Queen, and received a dividend on it, when they became bankrupts. Afterwards, in 1846, an action was brought by Duke against the present plaintiff, which was defended, in his name, and by his permission, by Mrs. Campbell, the present defendant,-pleading, amongst other things, that the debt due from the plaintiff to Duke had been paid, by his consent, to the present defendant. This defence, however, was unsuccessful: and the present plaintiff was compelled to pay 1601. 13s. 6d., the amount for which Duke obtained judgment, in order to avoid being taken under a.capias ad satisfaciendum. Upon this state of facts, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for 1601. 13s. 6d., with liberty to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, or to reduce the verdict to 1121. 16s. 6d. Byles, Serjt., in Easter term, 1848, obtained a rule nisi accordingly. He submitted that the action for [543] money paid, or money had and received, would not lie, under the circumstances, the order given by Lewis to Duke never having in fact produced money : and he referred to Stephens v. Badeock (3 B....
To continue reading
Request your trial