Cited by

(recognizing that unjust enrichment developed from a common-law cause of action called “money had and received,” which “could ‘be maintained whenever one [person] has received or obtained the [] money of another, which [they] ought in equity and good conscience to pay over.’” (quoting Brand & )).

)); Brand & (explaining that “[a]n action for money had and received”—the common-law antecedent to unjust enrichment— “can be maintained whenever one man has received or obtained the possession of the money of another, which he ought in equity and good conscience to pay over” (emphasis added)); 66 Am.

ble”); see also Herlache, d at 450 (recognizing that unjust enrichment developed from a common law cause of action called “money had and received,” which “could ‘be maintained whenever one [person] has received or obtained the possession of the money of another, which [they] ought in equity and good conscience to pay over.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Brand & )).

We recognized the “money had and received” cause of action soon after statehood and explained that the action could 10 “be maintained whenever one [person] has received or obtained the possession of the money of another, which [they] ought in equity and good conscience to pay over.” Brand &

See Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238, 239 , 13 N.W.

Very broadly defined, the cause of action was described by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238, 239 , , as one which “can be maintained whenever one man has received or obtained the possession of the money of another, which he ought in equity and good conscience to pay over.” To the same effect are Heywood v. Northern Assur.

The applicable law was stated by Mr. Justice Mitchell in the early decision of Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238, 239 , , as follows: “An action for money had and received can be maintained whenever one man has received or obtained the possession of the money of *476 another, which he ought in equity and good conscience to pay over.

The law in this state was well stated by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238, 239 , , thus: “An action for money had and received can be maintained whenever one man has received or obtained the possession of the money of another, which he ought in equity and good conscience to pay over.

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , Seastrand v. D. A. Foley & Co. 144 Minn. 239 , .

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , Todd v. Bettingen, 109 Minn. 493 , ; Heywood v. Northern Assur.

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , ; Todd v. Bettingen, 109 Minn. 493 , ; Heywood v. Northern Assurance Co. 133 Minn. 360 , , Ann. Cas.

Probably there is no better statement of the rule than that of Mr. Justice Mitchell in Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , , where that great jurist said: “An action for money had and received can be maintained whenever one man has received or obtained the possession of the money of another, which he ought in equity and good conscience to pay over.

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , , Sibley v. County of Pine, 31 Minn. 201 , .

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , .

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , ; Todd v. Bettingen, 109 Minn. 493 , .

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , .

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , , may be successfully distinguished, with respect to specific facts, from the case at bar.

The case comes within the elementary rule stated in Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , : “An action for money had and received can be maintained whenever one man has received or obtained the possession of the money of another which he ought, in equity and good conscience, to pay over.” This may not have been appellant’s exclusive remedy, but the facts pleaded present an action at law.

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 , .

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 ; Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 ; Sibley v. County of Pine, 31 Minn. 201 ; Bradford v. City of Chicago, 25 Ill.

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 .