Kelly V. Solari Notes

Kelly v. Solari

Facts

Mr. Angelo Solari, the late husband of the defendant, in the year 1836, effected a policy on his life with the Argus Assurance Company for 200. He died on the 18th of October, 1840, leaving the defendant his executrix, not having (by mistake) paid the quarterly premium on the policy, which became due on the 3rd of September preceding. In November, the actuary of the office informed two of the directors, Mr. Bates and Mr. Clift, that the policy had lapsed by reason of the non-payment of the premium, and Mr. Clift thereupon wrote on the policy, in pencil, the word “lapsed.” On the 6th of February, 1841, the defendant proved her husband's will; and on the 13th, applied at the Argus office for the payment of the sum of 1000, secured upon the policy in question and two others. Messrs. Bates and Clift, and a third director, accordingly drew a cheque for 9871. 10s., which they handed to the defendant's agent, the discount being deducted in consideration of the payment being made three months earlier than by the rules of the office it was payable. Messrs. Bates and Clift stated in evidence, that they had, at the time of so paying the money, entirely forgotten that the policy in question had lapsed.

An action brought by the plaintiff, as one of the directors of the Argus Life Assurance Company, to recover from the defendant, Madame Solari, the sum of 1971. 10s. alleged to have been paid to her by the company under a mistake of fact

Holding

Abinger CB

The safest rule however is, that if the party makes the payment with full knowledge of the facts, although under ignorance of the law, there being no fraud on the other side, he cannot recover it back again. There may also be cases in which, although he might by investigation learn the state of facts more accurately, he declines to do so, and chooses to pay the money notwithstanding; in that case there can be no doubt that he is equally bound. Then there is a third case, and the most difficult one,— where the party had once a full knowledge of the facts, but has since forgotten them. I certainly laid down the rule too widely to the jury, when I told them that if the directors once knew the facts they must be taken still to know them, and could not recover by saying that they had since forgotten them. I think the knowledge of the facts which disentitles the party from recovering, must mean a knowledge existing in the mind at the time of payment. I have little doubt in this case that the directors had forgotten...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.