Eastwick v. Hugg
1787.
EASTWICK verʃus HUGG.
T
HIS was an action for money had and received &c. The Defendant, being Sheriff of Glouceʃter county in New-Jerʃey, received a fum of money for the Plaintiff, which he lent, with her confent, upon a mortgage of lands in that ftate. The mortgagor, from time to time, paid the intereft to Hugg, and, finally, in the year 1778, paid the whole principal and intereft to him in depreciated paper money. It did not appear that Hugg had any exprefs authority from the Plaintiff to receive this payment of the principal from the mortgagor, and fhe afterwards refufed to accept the continental money, infifting that fhe was entitled to recover the full fum in fpecie ; for which, accordingly, the prefent action was brought. Upon the trial of the caufe, the Court, in their charge, left it to the Jury, is give fuch damages as they thought juft ; whereupon a verdict as returned for the Plaintiff, for the full amount received by the Defendant (Ł.27.10,) in hard money ; and Lewis, upon the ground of mifdirection moved, for a new trial.In fupport of this motion, two points were made for the Defendant:–1ʃt That in an action for money had and received, the Plaintiff waves all tort, admits the right to receive, and , therefore, can recover no more than has actually come to the Defendant's hands. 2 Burr. 1008 Cowp. 416.419. Ibid. 199. Bull. N.P. 128. 2dly That the Defendant, in this cafe, held the money as truftee for the Plaintiff, and ought, therefore, to be difcharged from any payment, except in the identical paper money which he had received. 2 Penn.Laws. 496.
Sergeant, for the Plaintiff, urged that the Court would not grant a new trial where the object was fo inconfiderable ; nor merely for a miftake in the form of the action, if the juftice of the caufe was with the Plaintiff. 2 Burr. 936. Cowp. 601. 2 Burr. 604. 5. And, he infifted, that the Jury had a right to eftimate the damages. 10. Mod. 19. 1 Ld. Raym. 1000.
the president, after confideration,ftated the circumftances of the cafe,and delivered the opinion of the Court, in the following manner:
SHIPPEN, Preʃident.−The facts were fhortly thefe:−The Defendant, then Sheriff of Glouceʃter county in New-Jerʃey, having in his hands a fum of money belonging to the Plaintiff, who refided in the city of Philadelphia, in the year 1772, with the confent of the Plaintiff, lent it to one of his neighbours in New-Jerʃey at feven per cent. intereft. A bond and mortgage was taken for it in the name of the Plaintiff, which were left in the Defendants hands for the purpofe of receiving the money when it fhould become due, for the
ufe of the Plaintiff. The obligor, whofe name was White, paid intereft at different times to the Defendant, who paid it over to the Plaintiff. In the month of November, 1778, the Defendant received the whole principal and intereft then due in Continental Money, and delivered up the bond and mortgage to the debtor.– It appeared by the teftimony of White that when he paid the Money to Hugg he did not mean to make a legal tender of it, although he brought a witnefs to be prefent at the payment, which was done, as he faid, only becaufe he himfelf he did not well underftand the Engliʃh language. Hugg not having paid the money to the Plaintiff, fhe brings this action againft him for money had and received to her ufe.
On the part of the Plaintiff it was contended on the trial, that the Defendant not having been compelled to received the Continental Money, received it in his own wrong, and ought to anfwer the full fum in hard Money to the Plaintiff.
The Court left it to the jury to confider the juftice and equity of the cafe, but hinted their opinion, that, confidering the circumftances of the times, it might be moft reafonable and juft to fettle the fum according to the fcale of depreciation. At the fame time telling them that this action was in the nature of a bill in equity, and that they might give fuch a fum in damages as they though juft. The jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff for the fum received in hard money. A motion was then made for a new trial on the of ground mifdirection.
Having had time to deliberate and confider the law arifing on this cafe, we are of opinion, that the court ought not to have left it to the jury to give in damages more than was actually received.
The action of aʃʃumpʃit for money had and received, has been of late confidered to be of fo liberal a nature, that it is not to be wondered at, that on a fudden its extent fhould be miftaken. It is a very beneficial action, not only for the Plaintiff, but the Defendant ; yet, it has its limits. It is beneficial to the Plaintiƒƒ, because, when he has another remedy as well as this, he may elect this, and is under no neceffity to ftate the fpecial circumftances of his cafe, but may make it out by evidence on the trial. For the Deƒendant it is beneficial, becaufe, as Lord Mansʃield fays, he can be liable ƒor no ƒurther than ƒor the money he has received, and againft that may go into every equitable defence upon the general iffue. It is in fact an action to oblige the Defendant to reƒund what he has received; and the word refund, ex vi termini, precludes the idea of his being anfwerable for more than he has actually received. Intereft, indeed, may be added as damages for the detention, but no more. In this kind of action the Plaintiff waves all torts and fpecial damages;
1787.
and goes only for the money received ; and fo far confirms the Defendant's act, as that he cannot gain fay his right to receive it.
As to the Juʃtice of the verdict, it is not fo very apparent as to make us anxious to fupport it, againft the rules of law. Col. Hugg was the Plaintiff's agent in this matter, without any reward. He was an Officer in the American army, and probably thought the fupport of the war depended on the fupport of the credit of the continental money ; it was the only money then in circulation ; and though it had depreciated five or six for one, he might- reafonably think it would not only be injurious to his own reputation, but to the common caufe, to refufe it. All thefe circumftances muft have been known to the Plaintiff, and yet the fuffers the bond and mortgage to remain in his hands. She might have taken the fecurities from him and abided by the confequences of refufing it herfelf. The debtor, White it is true, fwore he did not mean to force the money upon Hugg ; but it is as true, that when he brought the continental money to difcharge the debt, he brought a Witneʃs with him, which he had not done before when he paid the intereft in hard money. This circumftance might reafonably induce a belief in Hugg that he meant to make a legal tender of the money ; and White, notwithftanding what he fays, might poffibly have availed himfelf of it as a legal tender, in cafe Hugg had refufed the money.
For thefe reafons, I fay, the juftice of the verdict may be well queftioned ; yet if the cafe had been before the jury in fuch a way as that they could legally have given damages according to their difcretion, perhaps, we fhould not have thought it proper to fet afide their verdict, on account of their having, in a doubtful cafe, exercifed their judgment, and drawn different conclufions from the facts. However, as the law is clear, that in this kind of action, the Defendant is liable for no more than he has received, we muft order a new trial.[♦]