Moses v Macferlan

Last updated
Moses v Macferlan

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield.jpg

Lord Mansfield
Court Court of King's Bench
Decided 19 May 1760
Citation(s) (1760) 2 Bur 1005; 97 ER 676; [1558–1774] All ER Rep 581
Transcript(s) Available here
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Mansfield
Keywords
Law of restitution, Money had and received, Assumpsit

Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 is a foundational case in the law of restitution holding that in certain circumstances such as when money is paid by mistake, for failed consideration or under oppression; the law will allow the money to be recovered.

The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

Contents

Facts

Chapman Jacob had made out four promissory notes to Moses for 30s each. [1]

Promissory note negotiable instrument, wherein one party makes an unconditional promise in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other

A promissory note, sometimes referred to as a note payable, is a legal instrument, in which one party promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other, either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms.

Moses owed Macferlan £26, did not pay him and was sued. A settlement was reached at arbitration whereby Moses would pay Macferlan £20; and endorse to Macferlan the four promissory notes he had received from Jacob. [2] Moses, endorsed these notes to Macferlan, thus transferring over rights to the money. Prior to Moses endorsement, Macferlan assured him that his endorsement would not prejudice him. In other words, Macferlan would not seek to get the value of the notes from Moses. There was also an agreement signed by Macferlan that Moses should "not be liable to the payment of the money or any part of it".

Despite Macferlan's assurances and agreement with Moses; he summoned Moses into the Middlesex Court of Conscience as the endorser of the four promissory notes. [1]

Middlesex historic county of England

Middlesex is an ancient county in southeast England. It is now entirely within the wider urbanised area of London. Its area is now also mostly within the ceremonial county of Greater London, with small sections in other neighbouring ceremonial counties. It was established in the Anglo-Saxon system from the territory of the Middle Saxons, and existed as an official unit until 1965. The historic county includes land stretching north of the River Thames from 17 miles (27 km) west to 3 miles (5 km) east of the City of London with the rivers Colne and Lea and a ridge of hills as the other boundaries. The largely low-lying county, dominated by clay in its north and alluvium on gravel in its south, was the second smallest county by area in 1831.

The lawyer for Moses put the agreement before the court and offered to give evidence of it in Moses defence. [3] However, the Court rejected this defence as beyond its jurisdiction, refused to receive evidence of it and gave judgment against Moses; holding that his endorsement establishing his liability. Moses paid the money, to the value of the four promissory notes, into court. Macferlan then withdrew the money at the order of the court. [3]

On the subsequent action of Moses in the King's Bench court to recover the £6, the jury found that Moses was entitled to the money subject to the opinion of the court on the question, "Whether the money could be recovered in the present form of action, or whether it must be recovered by an action brought upon the special agreement only". [4]

William Gummow has summarised the problem that the court had to deal with;

"The root of the doctrinal problem presented to the King’s Bench in Moses v. Macferlan was the absence of an accepted basis for the action for money had and received. Lord Mansfield gave a number of settled instances where the action lay, but the instant case did not fall within any of them. Lord Mansfield also sought to find a principle within which past, present, and future cases might be accommodated. Given what he saw as the rigidities of the common law, Lord Mansfield looked to equity for an appropriate analogy upon which the common law should draw." [5]

Judgment

Lord Mansfield CJ dealt with a number of objections to allowing the plaintiff's action in Assumpsit.

Firstly, he noted the objection "That an Action of Debt would not lie here and no Assumpsit will lie, where an Action of Debt may not be brought"; and responded that the rule was "That an Action of Assumpsit WILL lie in many cases where Debt lies and in many where it does not lie." [4]

Secondly, he dealt with the objection, "That no Assumpsit lies, except upon an express or implied Contract"; answering "If the Defendant be under an Obligation, from the Ties of natural Justice, to refund; the Law implies a Debt, and gives this Action, founded in the Equity of the Plaintiff's Case, as it were upon a Contract". [4]

Thirdly, Lord Mansfield rejected the assertion that a court's judgment could not be revised by a new action; "Money may be recovered by a right and legal judgment; and yet the iniquity of keeping that money may be manifest, upon grounds which could not be used by way of defence against the judgment." [6]

Lord Mansfield then held,

"This kind of equitable action, to recover back money, which ought not in justice to be kept, is very beneficial, and therefore much encouraged. It lies for money which, ex aequo et bono , the defendant ought to refund; it does not lie for money paid by the plaintiff, which is claimed of him as payable in point of honour and honesty, although it could not have been recovered from him by any course of law; as in payment of a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations, or contracted during his infancy, or to the extent of principal and legal interest upon an usurious contract, or, for money fairly lost at play: because in all these cases, the defendant may retain it with a safe conscience, though by positive law he was barred from recovering. But it lies for money paid by mistake; or upon a consideration which happens to fail; or for money got through imposition, (express or implied) or extortion; or oppression; or an undue advantage taken of the plaintiff's situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances. In one word, the gist of this kind of action is, that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity, to refund the money." [7]

Significance

Lord Mansfield's judgment in Moses v Macferlan is credited with founding the entire common law of unjust enrichment. It has been described in the United Kingdom Supreme Court as "a corner-stone of common law restitution". [8]

As Peter Birks noted of Mansfield's statement of law (cited above), "This corresponds very closely to the modern structure of the law of unjust enrichment. The phrase "unjust enrichment" does not actually appear. But "money which ought not in justice to be kept" is "unjust enrichment", cut down to money as the form of action necessitated." [9]

Birks observes that Mansfield's classification of unjust factors, "was endowed with the authority of scripture and broadcast to the world by Blackstone. He adopted it in the third volume of his Commentaries , which came out in 1768. Following Lord Mansfield almost verbatim, Blackstone says that the plaintiff is entitled to recover "where money is paid by mistake, or on a consideration which happens to fail, or through imposition, extortion, or oppression, or where undue advantage is taken of the plaintiff's situation". [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Equity (law) set of legal principles that supplement the strict rules of law

In jurisdictions following the English common law system, equity is the body of law which was developed in the English Court of Chancery and which is now administered concurrently with the common law.

Estoppel judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent a person from making assertions or from going back on their word

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent, or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity.

A quasi-contract is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems.

<i>Quantum meruit</i> Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned"; in contract law, refers to a reasonable value of services

Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".

The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action".

In contract law, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura.

Assumpsit, or more fully, the action of assumpsit, was a form of action at common law. The origins of the action can be traced to the 14th century, when litigants seeking justice in the royal courts turned from the writs of covenant and debt to the trespass on the case.

Trover is a form of lawsuit in common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.

Constructive trust

A constructive trust is an equitable remedy resembling a trust imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference.

Northern Liberty Market Co. v. Kelly, 113 U.S. 199 (1885), was a writ of error to reverse a judgment for the defendant in an action brought on April 4, 1884, by a corporation formed for the purpose of erecting a markethouse in the City of Washington and carrying on a marketing business there, upon twenty promissory notes made by him to the plaintiff, dated January 1, 1875.

<i>Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd</i>

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd[1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment English law as the third pillar of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision.

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.

The English law of Restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. Its precise scope and underlying principles remain a matter of significant academic and judicial controversy. Broadly speaking, the law of restitution concerns actions in which one person claims an entitlement in respect of a gain acquired by another, rather than compensation for a loss.

<i>Slades Case</i>

Slade's Case was a case in English contract law that ran from 1596 to 1602. Under the medieval common law, claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters could only be pursued through a writ of debt in the Court of Common Pleas, a problematic and archaic process. By 1558 the lawyers had succeeded in creating another method, enforced by the Court of King's Bench, through the action of assumpsit, which was technically for deceit. The legal fiction used was that by failing to pay after promising to do so, a defendant had committed deceit, and was liable to the plaintiff. The conservative Common Pleas, through the appellate court the Court of Exchequer Chamber, began to overrule decisions made by the King's Bench on assumpsit, causing friction between the courts.

<i>Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC</i>

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[1996] UKHL 12 is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.

An action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use is the name for a common law claim derived from the form of action known as indebitatus assumpsit. The action enabled one person to recover money which has been received by another: for example, where a plaintiff paid money to the defendant while labouring under a mistake of fact or where there was a total failure of consideration. The action was a personal action only available in respect of money, rather than other benefits. Where the benefit received by the defendant was services or goods, the appropriate action was a quantum meruit or a quantum valebat, respectively.

<i>Exall v Partridge</i>

Exall v Partridge (1799) 101 ER 1405 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning enrichment through discharge of a debt, and the unjust factor of legal compulsion to give another a benefit.

Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution (2006) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English unjust enrichment law and restitution.

References

  1. 1 2 Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 at 1005.
  2. ↑ Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd [2001] HCA 68 at [76].
  3. 1 2 Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 at 1006.
  4. 1 2 3 Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 at 1008.
  5. ↑ Gummow, William (2010). "Moses v. Macferlan 250 Years On" (PDF). Retrieved 2 October 2015.
  6. ↑ Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 at 1009.
  7. ↑ Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 at 1012.
  8. ↑ Zurich Insurance PLC UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd [2015] UKSC 33 at [70].
  9. 1 2 Birks, Peter (2002). The Foundations of Unjust Enrichment: Six Centennial Lectures. Wellington: Victoria University Press``. p. 50.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.