Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/376

340 340 HARVARD LAW REVIEW It remains to consider certain principles affecting all situations hitherto dealt with in refunding. Negligence, or laches of the plaintiff in itself, unaccompanied by other circumstances such as change of position of defendant, in England properly constitutes no defense.^^^ The American law is not so clear,^'*^ In other branches of the law of mistake it is often remarked that negUgence or at least gross negligence will bar the plaintiff.^^® But Pomeroy says that each instance of negligence must depend on its own drcimistances; and that even a clearly established negligence may not be groimd for refusing relief if the other party is not prejudiced thereby."^ And this statement has been quoted with approval or similar statements made in the cases.^^^ At law in cases of mistake it is clear that negligence with- out more does not prejudice the plaintiff."^ Generally delay in ap- ^** Ridgway v. Newstead, 3 De G. F. & J. 474 (1861); Blake v. Gale, 32 Ch. D. 571 (1886). In re Eustace, [1912] 1 Ch. 561. 146 jn Wallace v. Swepston, 74 Ark. 520, 528, 86 S. W. 398 (1905), the unpaid cred- itor failed because "After this long lapse of time and the changes in the status of the parties, it seems to us to be inequitable to permit appellee to disturb the heirs." Here change of position seems to have influenced the decision as much as delay. But 2ce Wilson v. Smith, 117 Fed. 707 (Pa.) (1902). "« Duke of Beaufort v. Neeld, 12 CI. & F. 248, 286 (1845); Leuty v. Hillas, 2 De G. & J. no (1858); Besley v. Besley, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 103 (1878); Earl v. Van Natta, 29 Ind. App. 532, 64 N. E. 475 (1902); Citizen's Bank v. Judy, 146 Ind. 322, 43 N. E, 259 (1896); Diman v. Providence R. R., 5 R. I. 130 (1858); Voorhisz). Murphy, 26 N. J. Eq. 434 (1875); DiUett v. Kemble, 25 N. J. Eq. 66 (1874); Wood v. Patterson, 4 Md. Ch. 335 (1850); Capehart v. Mhoon, 5 Jones Eq. 178 (1859)5 Lewis v. Lewis, 5 Ore. 169 (1874). "^ 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Juris., 3 ed., § 856. 1^ Bush V. Bush, 33 Kan. 556, 563; Kinney v. Ensminger, 87 Ala. 340, 6 So. 72 (1888); Seeley v. Bacon, 34 Atl. (N. J.) 139 (1896); CoUignon v. Collignon, 52 N. J. Eq. 516, 28 Atl. 794 (1894); Southern F, & W. Co. v. Ozment, 132 N. C. 839, 44 S. E. 683 (1903); Powell V. Heisler, 16 Ore. 412, 19 Pac. 109 (1888); San Antonio Nat. Bank v. McLane, 96 Tex. 48, 70 S. W. 201 (1902). "9 Kelly V. Solari, 9 M. & W. 54 (1841); Townsend v. Crowdy, 8 C. B. (n. s.) 477 (i860); Brown v. Tillinghast, 84 Fed. 71 (1897); Merrill v. Brantly, 133 Ala. 537, 31 So. 847 (1901); Devine v. Eklwards, loi 111. 138 (1881); Brown v. College Road Co., 56 Ind. no (1877); Fraker v. Little, 24 Kan. 598 (1880); First Nat. Bank v. Behan, 91 Ky. 560, 16 S. W. 368 (1891); Baltimore R. R: Co. v. Faunce, 6 Gill (Md.) 68 (1847); Pingree v. Mutual Gas Co., 107 Mich. 156, 65 N. W. 6 (1895); Koontz v. Central Nat. Bank, 51 Mo. 275 (1873); Bone v. Friday, 180 Mo. App. 577, 167 S. W. 599 (1914); Douglas County v. Keller, 43 Neb. 635, 62 N. W. 60 (1895); Waite v. Leggett, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 195 (1828); Hathaway v. County of Delaware, 185 N. Y. 368, 370, 78 N. E. 153 (1906); Simms v. Vick, 151 N. C. 78, 65 S. E. 621 (1909); James River Bank v.