Sec 751

A mistake, not going to legal liability, is no ground for recovering back money whose payment it induces. I may pay from mistaken notions of kindness, or from mistaken notions of policy, but, unless the mistake involves a belief in facts from which arises a legal duty on my part to pay the money. I cannot recover the money back.1 "The right to recover money paid under a mistake of fact must have reference to a belief of the existence of a fact, which, if true, would have given the person receiving a right against the person paying the money; and it never can be applicable to a case where the fact mistaken is a fact which would merely have made it desirable for the person paying it to pay to the person receiving it."2 The action, also, " does not lie for money paid by the plaintiff which was claimed of him as payable in point of honor and honesty, although it could not have been recovered from him by any course of law; as in payment of a debt barred by the statute of limitations or contracted during his infancy, or to the extent of principal and legal interest upon an usurious contract, or for money fairly lost at play; because in all these cases the defendant may retain it with a safe conscience, though by positive law he was barred from recovering. But it lies," so it is added in conformity with the views already expressed, "for money paid by mistake; or upon a consideration which happens to fail; or for money got through imposition, express or implied; or extortion or oppression; or an undue advantage taken of the plaintiff's situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances."3 Hence money paid voluntarily to discharge a debt barred by the statute of limitations is not the basis of a suit for contribution;4 nor is money paid in discharge of an obligation not technically sustainable at law.5

Compromise money paid voluntarily cannot be recovered back.

Money paid from motives of policy or kindness cannot be recovered back; nor debts of honor.

1 See supra, sec 520; Begbie V. Phosphate Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 679; Slaughter V. Gerson, 13 Wall. 379; David V. Park, 103 Mass. 501; Phipps V. Buckman, 30 Penn. St. 401; Coil V. Pittsburg Coll., 40 Penn. St. 439.

2 Lamert V. Heath, 15 M. & W. 486. As to negligent error, see supra, sec 196, 572. That error in law does not avoid, see supra, sec 198.

3 Leake, 2d ed. 110; Clare V. Lamb, L. R. 10 C. P. 334; Hume V. Pocock, L. R. 1 Ch. 379; Manson V. Thacker, L. R. 7 C. D. 620.

4 Supra, sec 150, 198, 533; Bilbie V.

Lumley, 2 East, 469; Barber V. Pott, 4 H. & N. 759; Freeman V. Jefferies, L. R. 4 Ex. 189; Fay V. Oliver, 20 Vt. 118; Reed V. McGrew, 5 Ohio, 375; Troy V. Bland, 58 Ala. 197.

5 Mellish, L. J., in Rogers V. Ingham, L. R. 3 C. D. 358, adopted Leake, 2d ed. 100; supra, sec 523; and see Hunt V. Silk, 5 East, 449; Frambers V. Risk, 2 Ill. Ap. 499; supra, sec 740.

6 Thomas V. Brown, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 714; see supra, sec 533-5, as to compromise of doubtful claims being a good consideration.

1 Supra, sec 164, 496; Aiken V. Short, 1 H. & N. 210; Wilson V. Thornbury, L. R. 10 Ch. 239; see Clare V. Lamb, L. R. 10 C. P. 334; Livermore V. Peru, 55 Me. 469; Real Est. SaV. Inst. V. Linder, 74 Penn. St. 371.

2 Bramwell, B., Aiken V. Short, 1 H. & N. 210; see supra, sec 164, 496.

3 Lord Mansfield, C. J., Moses V. Macferlan, 2 Burr. 1005. That a promise to pay debts of the character expressed in the text binds, see supra,.