
    Garret Cavode and Nathan Williams v. William M‘Kelvey.
    THIS was an action of indebitatus assumsit, for money had and received.
    One Sterret purchased, for 29s. 6d. at commissioners’ sale, the claim of one George Knox to a tract of land in Westmoreland county, and sold it, for 50l. to M'Kelvey ; who sold it to Cavode and Williams, for 120l. of which 50l. was paid to Sterret, and 70l. to M'Kelvey; and they bound themselves to warrant and defend, according to the sums respectively received.
    
      
      Knox's claim was on a location of 25th July, 1769, on which no survey had been made, till after Cavode and Williams had purchased from Sterret and M'Kelvey. Before that time, the land, for which Knox had applied, (except 129 acres worth 5s. per acre, which, after their purchase, Cavode and Williams surveyed on Knox’s location) had been all surveyed on two warrants to one Fechter, and one Hammel, from whom Cavode and Williams purchased. Sterret, after his purchase from the commissioners, having entered a caveat against the surveys of Fechter and Hammel, on the ground, that Knox’s location was an elder title, Cavode and Williams, alarmed at this, to secure themselves, purchased Knox’s claim from Sterret and M'Kelvey. But afterwards, conceiving Knox’s claim bad, as against Fechter’s and Hammel’s, they brought this action to recover back all the money paid to M'Kelvey (the remaining 129 acres, at 5s. per acre, amounting only to 32l. 5s. and so not to 50l. paid to Sterret).
    
    
      Cann v. Cann cited 1 Atk.10, 2 Burr. 1012. Dall. 148.
    
    
      Cowp. 37. Losst. 383. 1 T.Rep. 60.
    
      Woods, for the defendant.
    Compromise of a doubtful title is a good consideration. Money paid voluntarily, if it may be retained with a good conscience, shall not be recoverd back, although the payment of it could not have been compelled by law.
    Brackenridge, for the plaintiff.
    The small sum of 29s. and 6d. paid for Knox’s claim, at commissioners sale, is so disproportionate to 120l. paid by Cavode and Williams, that there is intrinsic inconscionableness in the bargain, sufficient to raise a presumption of fraud. The plaintiffs must have been overreached by the address of Sterret and M'Kelvey. The land sold by Sterret and M'Kelvey to the plaintiffs was, before that sale, the property of the plaintiffs. Knox’s title was void. And Cavode and Williams got nothing for the money they paid to Sterret and M'Kelvey. It was paid without consideration, and must be recovered back.
   President.

In assumsit on a wager, “whether a decree in the court of Chancery would be reversed, on appeal to the house of Lords,” it was contended, that the event was not contingent, but certain ; for the law is clear, evident, and certain. But it was held, that the consideration was good, and the action lay. Settlement of a dispute is part of the consideration in this case, and seems to be the principal consideration in the view of the parties : that has not failed. There appears no fraud, nor concealment of circumstances, not equally in the knowledge of both parties.

There was a verdict for the defendant.  