Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
William B. Duncan et al., Appellants, v. Jacob Berlin et al., Respondents, 1871 — 46 N.Y. 685 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
William B. Duncan et al., Appellants, v. Jacob Berlin et al., Respondents
46 N.Y. 685·New York Court of Appeals·1871·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William B. Duncan et al., Appellants, v. Jacob Berlin et al., Respondents.
Where money is paid under a mistake of fact, negligence in making the mistake does not prevent the party paying from recovering it back, if the other party has not been prejudiced.
(Submitted June 22, 1871;
decided September 5, 1871.)
Plaintiffs, bankers in Rew York, had an account with H. Blagge & Co., of Texas, and supposed there was a balance due that firm. Defendants, creditors of B. & Co., attached the balance, obtained judgment, and plaintiffs paid over to the sheriff, bn the execution, under protest, $2,924.33. Upon settling the accounts, it was discovered that but $1,000 was due on the account. To recover back the $1,924.33, this action was brought. Judgment was given for defendants, which was affirmed by the General Term.
W. D. White, for appellants.
F. O. Gantine, for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Rapallo, J.,]
Rapallo, J.,
reads opinion for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.