On the face of the record, it appears that the court sustained the demurrer on grounds other than those claimed by the defendants. If, however, a proper conclusion was reached, the ruling may be upheld. English v. Smith, 123 Conn. 572, 580, 196 A. 781; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Richmond, 107 Conn. 117, 119, 139 A. 702; Hoxie v. New York, N.H. H.R. Co., 82 Conn. 352, 367, 73 A. 754; British American Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 77 Conn. 559, 564, 60 A. 293; Thresher v. Stonington Savings Bank, 68 Conn. 201, 205, 36 A. 38. In passing on a demurrer, the court should consider only the grounds specified.
The following opinions from the highest courts in other jurisdictions are in accord with the views expressed in the North Dakota case: Whitman v. Royal Oak Twp. (1934) 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835; Highland Park v. Dearborn Twp. (1938) 285 Mich. 440, 280 N.W. 820. (This latter case held that the holders of special improvement bonds were entitled to a decree directing the levy of a general tax by the township sufficient to enable the township to pay the bonds in suit.) English v. Smith (1938) 123 Conn. 572, 196 A. 781; Hansen v. Havre (Mont.) 114 P.2d 1053; Dunsmuir v. Porter (1936) 7 Cal.2d 269, 60 P.2d 836; Bowman v. Allen County (1931) 124 Ohio St. 174, 177 N.E. 271; Montgomery v. Denver (1938) 102 Colo. 427, 80 P.2d 434; State ex rel. Bigham v. Powers (1911) 124 Tenn. 553, 137 S.W. 1110; Deseret Sav. Bank v. Francis (1923) 62 Utah 85, 217 P. 1114; Comfort v. Tacoma (1927) 142 Wn. 249, 252 P. 929; Dos Anigos, Inc., v. Lehman (1930) 100 Fla. 1313, 131 So. 533; and E. E. Black, Ltd. v. Conkling (1936) 33 Haw. 731.
The cases supporting the minority view are cited in 21 R.C.L., p. 172, note 4, and in 48 C.J. 757, note 52. In addition to the cases there cited supporting the minority view, are the following: English v. Smith, 123 Conn. 572, 196 A. 781, Allen Lumber Co. v. Howard, 254 Ky. 778, 72 S.W.2d 483, and Kentucky West Virginia Gas Co. v. Preece, 260 Ky. 601, 86 S.W.2d 163, 166. In the last cited case the court quoted the following from one of its earlier cases, Underwood v. Brockman, 4 Dana (Ky.), 309, 29 Am. Dec. 407: "`It is well known, that all persons do not understand some of the plainest rules of law, and that no person, however enlightened, knows all the law.
See complaint, paragraph 9. "In this State remedy under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is available whether payment was made under mistake of fact or of law." English v. Smith, 123 Conn. 572, 576. Negligence of the plaintiff in making the mistake, if any, is not a sufficient defense to a recovery. This is because the estate of Lillian Abair in receiving payment due to the mistake of the plaintiff is found not to have suffered damage or harm.