Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/381

345 PROBLEMS IN PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION 345 payment, he will not be compelled to disgorge. "Change of posi- tion" here/^^ as elsewhere in the law of quasi contracts/^^ jg ^ defense. The change of position may consist in loss of rights on the claim or instrument on which payment is made/^ in delay in enforcing rights against others/^^ the payment over by an agent of money to his principal/®^ or by a fiduciary to his beneficiary.^^ "1 Brooking v. Fanners' Bank, 83 Ky. 431 (1885); Ridgway v. Newstead, 3 De G., F. & J. 474, 487 (1861). See Phetteplace v. Bucklin, 18 R. I. 297, 27 Atl. 211 (1893). 162 German Security Bank v. Columbia Trust Co., 27 Ky. L. R. 581, 85 S. W. 761 (1905); Pelletier v. State Nat. Bank, 117 La. 335, 41 So. 640 (1906); Wilson v. Barker, 50 Me. 447 (1862); Walker v. Conant, 65 Mich. 194, 31 N. W. 786 (1887); 69 Mich. 321, 17 N. W. 292 (1888); Pickslay v. Starr, 149 N. Y. 432, 44 N. E. 163 (1896); Con- tinental Nat. Bank v. Tradesman's Bank, 173 N. Y. 272, 65 N. E. 1108 (1903); Ball V. Shepard, 202 N. Y. 247, 95 N. E. 719 (191 1); Fegan v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 9 N. D. 30, 81 N. W. 39 (1899); Boas v. Updegrove, 5 Pa. 516 (1847); Atlantic Coast Line v. Schirmer, 87 S. C. 309, 69 S. E. 439 (1910); Richey v. Clark, 11 Utah 467, 40 Pac. 717 (1895). And see Deutsche Bank v. Beriro & Co., 73 L. T. R. 669 (1895); Maher v. Miller, 61 Ga. 556 (1878); Guild v. Baldridge, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 295 (1852); Keener, Qi^si Contracts, 59; Woodward, Quasi Contracts, §§ 26-30; Costigan, "Change of Position as a Defense," 20 Harv. L. Rev. 212. If the mistake is due to defendant's fault, change of position is no defense, for he only has himself to blame. Union Bank v. United States Bank, 3 Mass. 74 (1807) ; Koontz v. Central Nat. Bank, 51 Mo. 275 (1873); Phetteplace v. Bucklin, 18 R. I. 297, 27 Atl. 211 (1893); Metcalf V. Denson, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 565 (1874). 183 German Security Bank v. Columbia Trust Co., 27 Ky. L. R. 581, 85 S. W. 761 (1905); Pelletier v. State Nat. Bank, 117 La. 335, 41 So. 640 (1906). 1" Behring v. Somerville, 63 N. J. L. 568, 44 Atl. 641 (1899); Fegan v. Great North- em Ry., 9 N. D. 30, 81 N. W. 39 (1899); Boas v. Updegrove, 5 Pa. 516 (1847); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Schirmer, 87 S. C. 309, 69 S. E. 439 (1909); Richey v. Clark, 11 Utah, 467, 40 Pac. 717 (1895). Durrant v. Ecclesiastical Comm'rs, 62 Q. B. D. 234 (1880); Kingston v. Eltinge, 40 N. Y. 391 (1869); Houston R. Co. v. Hughes, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 514 (191 1), Contra. It is doubtful, however, whether Kingston v. Eltinge, which is clearly erroneous, would now be followed in New York in view of Continental Nat. Bank v. Tradesman's Bank, 173 N. Y. 272, 65 N. E. 1108 (1903); Hathaway v. County of Delaware, 185 N. Y. 368, 78 N. E. 153 (1906); Ball v. Shepard, 202 N. Y. 247, 95 N. E. 719 (1911). See Keener, Quasi Contracts, 66, 67; Woodward, Quasi Contracts, § 25, note; Costigan, "Change of Position as a Defense," 20 Harv. L. Rev. 215, note. i«« Holland v. Russell, i B. & S. 424 (1861); 4 B. & S. 14 (1863); Shand v. Grant, IS C. B.(n.s.)324 (1863); Hooper t;. Robinson, 98 U. S. S28 (1878); Hibbs j;. Beall, 41 App. D. C. 592; Maher v. Miller, 61 Ga. S56 (1878); Granger v. Hathaway, 17 Mich. Soo (1869). See Martin v. Allen, 125 Mo. App. 636, 103 S. W. 138 (1907); Mason v. Commerce Trust Co., 192 Mo. App. S28, 183 S. W. 707 (191s); 23 L. R. A. (n. s.),note. Through an extraordinary misconception of the true principles underlying the subject i* Yarborough v. Wise, s Ala. 292 (1843); Beam v. Copeland, S4 Ark. 70, 14 S. W. 1094 (1890); Grier v. Huston, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 402 (1822). But see Baylis v. Bishop of London, [1913] i Ch. 127.