1777-11-25 (static/transcriptions/1777/11/023.jpg)

1777. Sittings. [Tuesday] Nov. 25.

being the Land of the Plaintiff, and the Court of King’s Bench agreed to this Opinion.
Hyde. This case differs in being for the use of a third Person. I think it would hardly apply to the present case. I have always understood that when a Bargain was made for goods and the price paid in advance, that if the goods were not deliver’d, the money might be recover’d back, in the action for money had and received to the use of the Plaintiff. And in a case of which, as I know from the affidavits sworn before me, we have, and have had many depending in the Court, where a Sum of money has been given to procure and office or some favour, in truth a bribe has been given and the Service not perform’d, I have always thought this was the proper action to recover back the money. All those cases would be defeated if Lady Exeter’s case extends to this.
Impey I do not say these case run quatuor pedibus with Lady Exeter’s case. As my brother Hyde is of opinion this Count may be maintain’d the cause may go on and the Judgment of the Court may be given in Term on argument in full Court.
They went on. The agreement was proved to have been in writing and not being produced, the Plaintiff was non suited. So nothing was determined or is likely to be so in this case
But