Belden et al. v. the State

10 Citing cases

  1. Hulse v. West

    122 Misc. 719 (N.Y. Misc. 1924)

    Plaintiff is bound by the prior adjudication. Plaintiff confidently relies for the contrary upon Belden v. State, 103 N.Y. 1, where the court had under consideration the effect of a prior adjudication in People v. Denison, 80 N.Y. 656. Before referring to the conclusions reached in the Belden case it will be well to consider the facts in both of the cases. In the Denison case the state sued to recover moneys fraudulently obtained by defendants from the state.

  2. Consumers Power v. Muskegon County

    346 Mich. 243 (Mich. 1956)   Cited 25 times
    In Consumers, the plaintiff paid excess taxes and later claimed that it was entitled to a refund because its payment was due to a mistake of fact made by both it and the assessor-- the assessor mistakenly calculated the tax and made an excessive assessment, and the plaintiff failed to discover the error until after it paid the taxes.

    In vacating "so much of the pro forma taxing order as is based upon this mutual mistake of a material fact" the surrogate held, in part, as follows: "The principle underlying this rule is in origin the equitable one that `whenever one person has in his possession money which he cannot conscientiously retain from another, the latter may recover it' ( Roberts v. Ely, 113 N.Y. 128, 131 [ 20 N.E. 606, 607]; Hoyt v. Wright, 237 App. Div. 124, 127 [ 261 N.Y.S 131], see, also, Belden v. State, 103 N.Y. 1, 8, 9 [ 8 N.E. 363]), but its application has long since been extended to legal tribunals as is demonstrated by the fact that as early as 1832 it was held that assumpsit would lie for the recovery of money credited by mistake ( Tinslar v. May, 8 Wend [NY] 561). "In perhaps a majority of the pronouncements hereinbefore cited, the determinations have coupled mistake and fraud in the same category, no doubt on the theory that the attempted retention of money or property which in equity and good conscience belongs to another is in effect a constructive fraud on such other."

  3. Ney v. Zimmerman

    207 App. Div. 195 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)   Cited 4 times

    The action decided, from which quotation is made, was an action subsequently brought to recover as an employee under a contract to be paid one-half the profits of the venture. In Belden v. State ( 103 N.Y. 1) judgment absolute was rendered by the Court of Appeals against the State in a prior action by it to recover the whole amount paid on contract, upon which over-payment was made, on the ground of defendant's fraud in procuring such payments. Judgment went to the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish fraud.

  4. Brown v. Ellery

    98 Misc. 639 (N.Y. App. Term 1917)   Cited 3 times

    None of the authorities cited to us by the defendants as bearing upon the subject seems to be in point, nor have our own researches disclosed any decision in which the pleading question here involved was passed upon or discussed. We find, however, that in Belden v. State, 103 N.Y. 1, it was held that an overpayment made through error on one contract should be credited in reduction of the unpaid balance due upon another contract between the same parties, the ruling being predicated upon the theory that the overpayment on contract A was, to the extent of the excess, to be deemed to be payment on account of contract B; and it would seem to follow that as matter of pleading the payment so made on contract B is not to be distinguished from any other form of payment. Furthermore, we can see no controlling reason for a requirement that a special form of plea be used in such a case as we are here dealing with, and it is our opinion that the proof of a double or second payment is admissible under the usual general plea of payment.

  5. A & E Tiebout Realty, LLC v. Johnson, 2009 NY Slip Op 30860(U) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 4/17/2009)

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 30860 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2009)

    The right of a creditor to apply payments is subject to the general limitation that the application must be equitable and not work an injustice to the debtor. (Belden v. State, 103 NY 1, 9 [1886]; 82 NYJur2d Payment and Tender ยง 61 [2009]. See also Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 254 NY 218, 232 [1930, Cardozo, C.J.], holding that "an application [of payments], usually appropriate, may be varied by the court when variance is necessary to promote the ends of justice.")

  6. A & E Tiebout Realty, LLC v. Johnson, 2009 NY Slip Op 50715(U) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 4/17/2009)

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 50715 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2009)

    The right of a creditor to apply payments is subject to the general limitation that the application must be equitable and not work an injustice to the debtor. (Belden v. State, 103 NY 1, 9 [1886]; 82 NYJur2d Payment and Tender ยง 61 [2009]. See also Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 254 NY 218, 232 [1930, Cardozo, C.J.], holding that "an application [of payments], usually appropriate, may be varied by the court when variance is necessary to promote the ends of justice.")

  7. A E TIEBOUT REALTY, LLC v. JOHNSON

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 50715 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2009)

    The right of a creditor to apply payments is subject to the general limitation that the application must be equitable and not work an injustice to the debtor. ( Belden v. State, 103 NY 1, 9; 82 NYJur2d Payment and Tender ยง 61 [2009]. See also Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 254 NY 218, 232 [1930, Cardozo, C.J.], holding that "an application [of payments], usually appropriate, may be varied by the court when variance is necessary to promote the ends of justice.") To permit petitioner to apply respondent's payments to her past arrears to support its possessory claim would cause respondent who is elderly and indigent to lose her home of over 30 years.

  8. Matter of Wing

    162 Misc. 551 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1937)   Cited 9 times
    In Matter of Wing (162 Misc. 551), the court stated: "The principle underlying this rule is in origin * * * [an] equitable one that `whenever one person has in his possession money which he cannot conscientiously retain from another, the latter may recover it' * * * but its application has long since been extended to legal tribunals as is demonstrated by the fact that as early as 1832 it was held that assumpsit would lie for the recovery of money credited by mistake.

    The principle underlying this rule is in origin the equitable one that "whenever one person has in his possession money which he cannot conscientiously retain from another, the latter may recover it" ( Roberts v. Ely, 113 N.Y. 128, 131; Hoyt v. Wright, 237 A.D. 124, 127. See, also, Belden v. State, 103 N.Y. 1, 8, 9), but its application has long since been extended to legal tribunals as is demonstrated by the fact that as early as 1832 it was held that assumpsit would lie for the recovery of money credited by mistake. ( Tinsler v. May, 8 Wend. 561.)

  9. Fowler v. Bowery Sav. Bank

    21 N.E. 172 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1889)

    Supm. Ct., 1866, Morgan v. Powers, 66 Barb. 35. 91. Fraud or mistake.] Judgment in action for fraud not bar to action based on mistake of fact. Ct. of App, 1886, Belden v. State of N. Y., 103 N. Y. 1; aff'g 31 Hun, 409. 92. Partnership, or employment.] A judgment dismissing a complaint in an action for a partnership accounting, based upon a finding that there was no partnership,-- Held, not a bar to a subsequent action between the same parties to recover for plaintiff's services under a contract to pay him therefor one-half of the profits, although both actions referred to the same transaction and business.

  10. Ward v. Greinlds

    10 A. 374 (Ch. Div. 1887)   Cited 1 times

    The existence of means of payment in the hands of the creditor, and the lapse of time, are conclusive evidence of an actual discharge of the debt, or are of themselves facts which require a court of equity to adjudge such application to have been made. Belden v. State, (N. Y.) 8 N. E.ep. 363.