The question before the court was whether certain money, which had been obtained by fraud, ought to be returned to the Plaintiff by a party who had received it, but who was not a party to the fraud. Lord Commissioner Wilmot said, ‘Whoever receives it, must take it tainted and infected with the undue influence and imposition of the person procuring the gift; his partitioning and cantoning it out amongst his relations and friends will not purify the gift and protect it against the equity of the person imposed upon. Let the hand receiving it be ever so chaste, yet, if it come through a corrupt, polluted channel, the obligation of restitution will follow it.’
Judges:
Wilmot LC
Citations:
(1757) Wilm 58, [1757] 97 ER 22
Citing:
Affirmed – Bridgeman v Green 1755
The court was asked whether certain money, which had been obtained by fraud, ought to be returned to the Plaintiff by a party who had received it, but who was not a party to the fraud. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Prince Albert v Strange ChD 8-Feb-1849
The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Undue Influence, Torts – Other
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448289