Doyle v. Matheron

California Court of Appeal Feb 15, 1957 No. Civ. 17127Published

Before: Peters

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party who receives money under a mistake of fact is not required to refund it if the recipient has substantially changed their position in reliance on the payment such that restitution would be inequitable.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding that the respondent substantially changed his position in reliance on payments received from the appellant is supported by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

PETERS, P. J.

Appellant Doyle had a contract with the federal government to haul certain government freight. Doyle did not have the trucking facilities to carry all of the freight involved. Doyle entered into an agreement with Matheron to the effect that Matheron would subhaul some of the freight in return for a percentage of the amount received by Doyle from the federal government. Admittedly, Doyle kept the books, computed the rates, and billed the government for the services rendered. Doyle then remitted to Matheron the agreed upon percentages that he was to receive. This arrangement between Doyle and Matheron continued for approximately three years, and was then terminated, the percent-, ages received by Matheron varying as the arrangement between them was from time to time modified. After the Doyle-Matheron contract had been terminated, a government audit showed that Doyle had overcharged the government. Doyle paid back to the government the amount of these overcharges. Admittedly, Doyle was negligent in billing the government, and such overcharges were proximately caused by Doyle’s negligence. Many months after repaying the government, Doyle brought this action to recover from Matheron the sum of $3,821.27, being the proportion of the overcharge that Doyle claimed that he overpaid to Matheron. Matheron denied liability, and cross-complained for certain moneys claimed owing to him by Doyle. The trial court gave judgment in favor of Matheron on both the complaint and cross-complaint. Doyle appeals only from the adverse judgment on his complaint.

The rule of law applicable to the problem here involved is not in dispute. Both parties agree that the following statement of the law in

National Bank of Calif,

Miner,

167 Cal. 532, 537 [140 P. 27], is correct:

“The rule governing such transactions received extended consideration in

Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank

Nevada Bank,

139 Cal. 564 [73 P. 456, 96 Am.St.Rep. 169, 63 L.R.A. 245]. . . . There, amongst other quotations and citations of authority, the following language from the

National Bank of Commerce

National Mechanics Assn., 55

Doyle v. Matheron

AI Brief

PETERS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief