Opinion
August, 1814.
Appeal from the Court of Chancery.
The complainant below alleged that she had, under a misapprehension of the extent of the debts due from the testator's estate and supposing them far less considerable than they actually were, paid to the defendant the amount of a legacy bequeathed to his wife by the testator; that since the said legacy was paid, the assets had proved insufficient; that a settlement had taken place before the Register, from which it appeared the complainant was upwards of $10 out of pocket, and stated generally that many debts remained unpaid, and in particular that a judgment obtained by a certain W. M. was not yet satisfied; and prayed an account and that the legacy might be decreed to be refunded.
Defendant, by his answer, insisted that the legacy was paid under a full knowledge on the part of the complainant of the situation of the testator's estate and denied that there was any misapprehension. It appeared that the payment of the legacy was taken notice of in the account settled before the Register, and that the amount of it was credited to the complainant.
THE CHANCELLOR dismissed the bill on the merits.
The cause of appeal assigned was mistake at first as to amount of assets, payment under that; the decree against law, equity and good conscience. J. Rogers and G. Read.
Let the decree of the Chancellor stand affirmed.
(Vide, contra, Atkins v. Hill, Cowp. 287. If after legacy paid, debts appear, the money may be recovered back, on the ground of a payment by mistake.)