McArthur v. Luce
Dougald McArthur v. Theodore Luce
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Marston, C. J.
Luce & Co., in demanding that McArthur pay them for logs cut, as they supposed, upon their land, acted in entire good faith. They had a survey made, and according thereto the plaintiff had cut logs over the line. When the claim was made upon the plaintiff he employed a surveyor and they went upon the land and plaintiff then became satisfied that he had cut and taken logs from off defendants’ land, and authorized a settlement to be made, which was done. This was in 1871 and all parties rested in the belief that a correct settlement had been made until some time in 1875 when a new survey established the fact that no logs had been cut upon defendants’ land and this action was brought to recover back the moneys paid, upon the claim of having been paid under a mistake of fact.
Where a claim is thus made against another who, not relying upon the representations of the claimant, has the opportunity to and does investigate the facts, and thereupon becomes satisfied that the claim made is correct and adjusts and pays the same, I think such settlement and payment should be considered as final. If not, it is very difficult to say when such disputed questions could be considered as finally settled, or litigation ended. In the settlement of disputed questions where both parties have equal opportunity and facilities for ascertaining the facts, it becomes incumbent on each to then make his investigation and not carelessly settle trusting to future investigation to show a mistake of fact and enable him to recover back the amount paid. One course encourages carelessness and breeds litigation after witnesses have passed beyond the reach of the parties: the other encourages parties in ascertaining what the facts and circumstances actually are while the transaction is fresh in the minds of all, and a final and peaceful settlement thereof. Detroit Advertiser & Tribune Co. v. Detroit, ante p. 116 and County of Wayne v. Randall, ante p. 137.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.