Thus, although the action is governed by OCGA ยง 13-1-13, Georgia courts have construed that Code section and its predecessors โ and interpreted the action itself โ in conjunction with the equitable principles set forth in the Code, including OCGA ยง 23-2-32 and its predecessors. E.g., Orient Ins. Co. v. Dunlap, 193 Ga. 241, 248(2), 17 S.E.2d 703 (1941); Whitehurst v. Mason, 140 Ga. 148, 78 S.E. 938 (1913); Barton Ludwig, Inc. v. Thompson, 170 Ga. App. 187, 316 S.E.2d 786, supra, cert. den.; DeKalb County etc., Union v. D.L. Claborn, etc., 162 Ga. App. 631, 292 S.E.2d 507 (1982); Dept. of Administrative Serv. v. Pritchett, 160 Ga. App. 294, 287 S.E.2d 290 (1981); Sun. Fed. Svgs., etc., Assn. v. Manny, 156 Ga. App. 807, 808(3), 275 S.E.2d 661 (1980); J.C. Penney Co. v. West, 140 Ga. App. 110, 230 S.E.2d 66, supra; Dept. of Public Health v. Perry, 123 Ga. App. 816, 182 S.E.2d 493 (1971); Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Atlantic Discount Co., 120 Ga. App. 388, 170 S.E.2d 740 (1969); Bass v. Cates, 74 Ga. App. 363, 370, 39 S.E.2d 550 (1946); Dobbs v. Perlman, 59 Ga. App. 770, 2 S.E.2d 109 (1939). (The apparent reason for the paucity of cases from this court applying specifically to actions for money had and received is that such an action "is not an equity case within the meaning of the constitutional provision relating to the jurisdiction of this court."
Thus, although the action is governed by OCGA ยง 13-1-13, Georgia courts have construed that Code section and its predecessors โ and interpreted the action itself โ in conjunction with the equitable principles set forth in the Code, including OCGA ยง 23-2-32 and its predecessors. E.g., Orient Ins. Co. v. Dunlap, 193 Ga. 241, 248 (2) ( 17 S.E.2d 703) (1941); Whitehurst v. Mason, 140 Ga. 148 ( 78 S.E. 938) (1913); Barton Ludwig, Inc. v. Thompson, 170 Ga. App. 187, supra, cert. den.; DeKalb County c. Union v. D. L. Claborn Buick, 162 Ga. App. 631 ( 292 S.E.2d 507) (1982); Dept. of Administrative Svcs. v. Pritchett, 160 Ga. App. 294 ( 287 S.E.2d 290) (1981); Sun Fed. Savings. c. Assn. v. Manny, 156 Ga. App. 807, 808 (3) ( 275 S.E.2d 661) (1980); J. C. Penney Co. v. West, 140 Ga. App. 110, supra; Dept. of Public Health v. Perry, 123 Ga. App. 816 ( 182 S.E.2d 493) (1971); Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Atlantic Discount Co., 120 Ga. App. 388 ( 170 S.E.2d 740) (1969); Bass v. Cates, 74 Ga. App. 363, 370 ( 39 S.E.2d 550) (1946); Dobbs v. Perlman, 59 Ga. App. 770 ( 2 S.E.2d 109) (1939). (The apparent reason for the paucity of cases from this court applying specifically to actions for money had and received is that such an action "is not an equity case within the meaning of the constitutional provision relating to the jurisdiction of this court."
Accordingly, the Crislers have no defense on this ground. See also Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Atlantic Discount Co., 120 Ga. App. 388, 389 ( 170 SE2d 740) (1969) (plaintiff's negligence did not defeat action for money had and received where it did not violate a positive legal duty owed to the defendant). Farr's partners had access to the firm's computer accounts, including Farr's client files, which possibly could have led them to discover the fraud earlier.
[Cit.]" Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Atlantic Discount Co., 120 Ga. App. 388-89 (170 S.E.2d 740). The trial court incorrectly concluded that DCE failed to exercise reasonable means to mitigate its damages when it did not purchase the Buick in the possession of Bill Davidson. As an unperfected lienholder it had no legal rights to this automobile as against Bill Davidson, a stranger to the initial transaction; nor was any positive legal duty owed D. L. Claborn, whose employee, through negligence or inadvertence, caused DCE to lose its lien. While DCE had a legal obligation to do nothing to prejudice the rights of D. L. Claborn or to increase its damages, the amount of damages was fixed at the time D. L. Claborn failed to comply with the terms of the conditional delivery of the funds as clearly set out by the terms of the loan and the endorsement on the check.
" Federal Employees Credit Union v. Capital Automobile Co., 124 Ga. App. 144, 145 ( 183 S.E.2d 39) (1971). "[T]he defendant, by negotiating the two checks issued by the plaintiff and payable to the defendant, obtained money which belongs to the plaintiff and which it had no right to retain, even though it acted at all times in good faith..." Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Atlantic Discount Co., 120 Ga. App. 388, 389 ( 170 S.E.2d 740) (1969). Judgment affirmed.
Appellant has acted diligently to protect his rights. This court held in Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Atlantic Discount Co., 120 Ga. App. 388, 389 ( 170 S.E.2d 740): "We think the record makes it clear that whoever must bear the ultimate loss resulting from the fraudulent scheme of the defendant's salesmen is an innocent victim, whether the plaintiff or the defendant, but the law is settled that an action lies in all cases where one has received money which another, ex aequo et bono, is entitled to recover and which the recipient is not entitled in good conscience to retain." Since there were questions of fact which must be resolved by a jury, this case is reversed.
"[T]he law is settled that an action lies in all cases where one has received money which another, ex aequo et bono, is entitled to recover and which the recipient is not entitled in good conscience to retain." Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Atlantic Discount Co., 120 Ga. App. 388 ( 170 S.E.2d 740). The judgment rendered in favor of the defendant was not authorized by any of the evidence in the case or under any theory of the law which has been urged.
"[T]he law is settled that an action lies in all cases where one has received money which another, ex aequo et bono [in justice and fairness], is entitled to recover and which the recipient is not entitled in good conscience to retain." Bill Heard Chevrolet Company, Inc. v. Atlantic Discount Company, Inc., 120 Ga. App. 388, 170 S.E.2d 740. 183 S.E.2d at 40-41 (emphasis added).