Lord Mansfield granted recovery to the plaintiff of money paid by the plaintiff to procure her brother’s discharge from bankruptcy, which was an illegal consideration. As he explained, Lord Mansfield, at p 698, regarded it as in the public interest that the plaintiff should be repaid notwithstanding the illegal purpose of the payment:
‘Upon the whole, I am persuaded it is necessary, for the better support and maintenance of the law, to allow this action; for no man will venture to take, if he knows he is liable to refund.’
(1760) 2 Doug KB 696n,  99 ER 441
England and Wales
Cited – Patel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.676817