Citation network
Elliott Vs. Swartwout
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1836
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 137 (1836) U.S. Supreme Court Elliott v. SwartwoutSearch
-
U.S. 10 Pet. 137 137 (1836) Elliott v. SwartwoutSearch
-
must be by application to the favor of the government, and not on the ground of a legal right. The case of Morgan v. PalmerSearch
-
payment having been voluntary, it could not be recovered back in an action for money had and received. And in Brisbain v. DacresSearch
-
been paid over to the public treasury, as in the question now under consideration. Lord Eldon, in the case of Bromley v. HollandSearch
-
approves the doctrine and says it is a sound principles that a voluntary payment is not recoverable back. In Cox v. PrenticeSearch
-
And in Buller v. HarrisonSearch
-
and required not to pay it over, he is personally liable. The principle laid down by Lord Ellenborough in Townsend v. WilsonSearch
-
for, says Lord Ellenborough, the plaintiff had been arrested and was under duress when he paid the money. In Stevenson v. MortimerSearch
-
cases of voluntary payments made by Page 35 U. S. 156 mistake is evident from what fell from him in Sadler v. EvansSearch
-
a public officer beyond any protection, sanctioned by any principles of law or sound public policy. The case of Irving v. WilsonSearch
-
and therefore this could not be called a voluntary payment. The case of Greenway v. HurdSearch
-
to waive the objection by paying it. And Lord Kenyon considered the case as falling within the principle of Sadler v. EvansSearch
-
Bur. 1984, which has already been noticed. In the case of Snowden v. DavisSearch
-
of process to redeem his goods, and not with intent that it should be paid over to anyone. The case of Ripley v. GelstonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
extorted as a condition of giving a clearance, and not with intent or purpose to be paid over. In the case of Clinton v. StrongSearch
-
such circumstances was a voluntary payment precluding the party from contesting it afterwards. The case of Hearsey v. PrynSearch
-
money to which the principal had no right if the agent has had notice not to pay it over. And in the case of Fry v. LockwoodSearch
-
paid over, no suit will lie against the agent to recover it back. But the distinction taken in the case of Ripley v. GelstonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Elliott v. SwartwoutSearch
-
of Morgan v. PalmerSearch
-
Brisbain v. DacresSearch
-
of Bromley v. HollandSearch
-
In Cox v. PrenticeSearch
-
Buller v. HarrisonSearch
-
Townsend v. WilsonSearch
-
In Stevenson v. MortimerSearch
-
Sadler v. EvansSearch
-
of Irving v. WilsonSearch
-
of Greenway v. HurdSearch
-
of Sadler v. EvansSearch
-
of Snowden v. DavisSearch
-
of Ripley v. GelstonSearch
-
of Clinton v. StrongSearch
-
of Hearsey v. PrynSearch
-
of Fry v. LockwoodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial