RESTITUTION-UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Authors

Robert L. Sandblom S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiff brought an action of assumpsit against defendant national bank on a theory of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff and plaintiff's father were two of the nine directors of defendant bank when the bank holiday was declared in 1933. As a condition to reopening, the Comptroller of the Currency required that unconditional contributions be made to undivided profits in the amount of $32,000. Each director agreed to advance a one-ninth part, with the understanding among themselves that repayment would be made when the bank was able to do so. With the knowledge of the other directors, plaintiff advanced his own share and the major part of his father's. Permission was secured from the Comptroller in 1947 to refund the sums advanced in 1933. Plaintiff was not a member of the board when the repayment was approved, and his father had died years earlier. Plaintiff received his aliquot contribution, but the bank refused to repay the sum paid toward the father's share, claiming a right to apply it against a note allegedly guaranteed by the father, though no such agreement existed with the plaintiff. On appeal from a judgment for plaintiff, held, affirmed. A cause of action grounded on unjust enrichment arose upon the repayment to the other directors, and obtained in spite of the absence of any contract, express or implied, that repayment would be made. Binns v. First National Bank of California, 367 Pa. 359, 80 A. (2d) 768 (1951).

Recommended Citation

Robert L. Sandblom S.Ed., RESTITUTION-UNJUST ENRICHMENT, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 778 (1952).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss5/16