
    Wilkins v. Woodfin, Administrator of Pearce.
    Decided, Oct. 28th, 1816.
    «. Equitable Jurisdiction — Repayment of Money Paid by Mistake. — A Court of .Equity has jurisdiction to decree the repayment of money paid by mistake: notwithstanding: the plaintiff’s remedí7' by as-sumpsit for money had and received. 
    
    3. Evasive Answer-Weight of. — An evasive answer, (though not excepted to as such,) outweighed by the testimony of one witness, and circumstances. SecMaupinv. Whiting. 1 Call 224; and Pryor y. Adams. Ibid. 390.
    John U. Wilkins filed his Bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District against Samuel Pearce, to *be relieved against a mistake, which he alleged had occurred to his prejudice in an exchange of bonds, and shewed by an account stated. The defendant by his answer said, that the statement of the complainant, “as made in the bill, was not true;” and went on to state the transaction differently in some respects; but evaded, (without expressly denying,) the charge of the mistake. He also pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court; alleging that the plaintiff’s°rcmedy, if he had any, was at law. The defendant’s acknowledgment that a mistake had been committed was proved by the evidence of one witness. Chancellor Taylor, on hearing the cause, dismissed the bill, will costs, from which decree the complainant appealed.
    
      
       See monographic note on “Jurisdiction” appended to Phippen v. Durham. 8 Gratt. 457.
      The principal case is cited in West v. Logwood, 6 Munf. 499, 504
    
    
      
       Note. In this case, the bill did not pray a discovery, n or set forth any ground for the j nrisdiction ol the Court of Equity, but the mistake. — Note in Original Edition.
    
   Monday, October 28th, 1816,

JUDGE) BROOKE

pronounced the following opinion of the Court:—

The Court is of opinion that the deposition of one witness, aided by the circumstances in this case, outweighs the answer of the defendant. The bill alleges that, in an exchange of bonds, a mistake was made in the calculation, to the prejudice of the Appellant, ninety-six pounds, four shillings and two pence. The defendant, not positively denying that allegation, evades it by stating that the bonds referred to in the bill were offered to him by the Appellant, and that he accepted them. The account, which is set out in the bill, discloses the fact that he was credited ninety-six pounds, four shillings and two pence more (including the thirty-nine pounds, fourteen shillings and four pence, claimed by the Appellant, as conpensation for the exchange,) than the Appellant; yet he omits to notice it in his answer, and only insists, that he was to have a reasonable advantage in the exchange. That ninety-six pounds, four shillings and two pence was a reasonable advantage, is not pretended, and is a result totally inconsistent with the defendant’s own account of the circumstances that preceded the exchange. If the deposition is let in, no doubt can remain. The witness deposes that the defendant admitted that he discovered the mistake before he left the Appellant’s house; that he saw the account, and discovered the mistake before the Appellant; and that he would not inform him of it, because the Appellant had treated him ill. On these grounds the said decree is erroneous. The same is therefore reversed, with costs. And «this Court proceeding &c. it is farther decreed and ordered that the Appellee, out of the estate of his said intestate in his hands to be administered, do pay to the Appellant ninety-six pounds four shillings and two pence, with interest thereon, to be computed after the rate of six per centum per annum, from the 7th day of December, 1807, until payment, and also his costs by him in the said Court of Chancery expended.  