Assumpsit will lie at the suit of a third party on a contract made in his favor; Hen drick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S. 143, 23 L. Ed. 855; Kountz v. Holthouse, 85 Pa. 235 (but see Ramsdale v. Horton, 3 Pa. 330); Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N. Y. 268 (but see Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 195); Snell v. Ives, 85 Ill. 279; Bassett v. Hughes, 43 Wis. 319. Contra, Warren v. Batchelder, 15 N. H. 129. See discussion in 15 Am. L. Rev, 231, and 4 N. J. L. J. 197.
A promise or undertaking on the part of the defendant, either expressly made by him or implied by the law from his actions, con stitutes the gist of the action. A sufficient consideration for the promise must be aver red and shown; 21 Am. Jur. 258, 283 ; though it may be implied by the law ; Jackson v. Teele, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 29; Jerome v. Whit ney, id. 321; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 210, 25 Am. Dec. 378; as in case of negotiable promissory notes and bills, where a consideration is presumed to exist till its absence is shown ; Middlebury v. Case, 6 Vt 165.
The action lies for— Money had and received to the plaintiff's use, including all cases where one has money, or that which the parties have agreed to treat as money; Willie v. Green, 2 N. H. 333; Clark v. Pinney, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 297; Mar shall v. McPherson, 8 Gfll & J. (Md.) 333; Barfield v. McComb; 89 Ga. 799, 15 S. E. 666; Colt v. Clapp, 127 Mass. 476; Harper v. Claxton, 62 Ala. 46; McFadden v. Wilson, 96 Ind. 253 ; in his hands which in equity and good conscience he is bound to pay over, including bank-notes; 13 East 20, 130; Mason v. Waite, 17 Mass. 560; Ainslie v. Wilson, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 662, 17 Am. Dec. 532; Hill's Adm'r v. Kennedy, 32 Ala. 523; prom issory notes ; Tebbetts v. Haskins, 16 Me. 285 ; Tuttle v. Mayo, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 132; Edgerton v. Brackett, 11 N. H. 218; Indian apolis Ins. Co. v. Brown, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 378; notes payable in specific articles; Cum dal v. Bradley, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 311; and some kinds of evidences of debt ; 3 Campb. 199 ; Gilchrist v. Cunningham, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 641; Mason v. Waite, 17 Mass. 560; but not goods, except under special agreement; Morrison v. Berkey, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 246; 3 B. & P. 559; 1 Y. & J. 380; whether deliver ed to the defendant for a particular put. pose to which he refuses to apply it; 3 Price 68; Wales v. Wetmore, 3 Day (Conn.) 252; McNeilly v. Richardson, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 607, Eastman v. Hodges, 1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 101; Gutherie v. Hyatt, 1 Harr. (Del.) 446; see 2 Bingh. 7; Hall v. Marston, 17 Mass. 575; or obtained by him through fraud ; 1 Salk. 28; Bliss v. Thompson, 4 Mass. 488; Lyon v. Annable, 4 Conn. 350; Phelps v. Conant, 30 Vt. 277;. Reynolds v. Rochester, 4 Ind. 43; or by tortious seizure and conversion of the plaintiff's property; Bigelow v. Jones, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 161; and see Cowp. 414; I Campb. 285; or by duress, imposition, or un due advantage or other involuntary and wrongful payment; 6 Q. B. 276; Richardson
v. Duncan, 3 N. H. 508; Wheaton v. Hib bard, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 11 Am. Dec. 284; Chase v. Dwinal, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 135, 20 Am. Dec. 352; Perry v. Inhabitants of Dover, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 206; Central Bank v. Dressing Co., 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 23; Reynolds v. Roches ter, 4 Ind. 43 ; Sheldon v. South School Dist., 24 Conn. 88; Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 137, 9 L. Ed. 373; Sartwell v. Hor ton, 28 Vt. 370; or for a security which turns out to be a forgery, under some cir cumstances; 3 B. & C. 428 ; Terry v. Bissell, 26 Conn. 23; Rick v. Kelly, 30 Pa. 527; Ellis v. Trust Co., 4 Ohio St. 628, 64 Am. Dee. 610; or paid under a mistake of fact ; 9 Bingh. Mowatt v. Wright, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 355, 19 Am. Dec. 508 ; Dickens v. Jones, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 483, 27 Am. , Dec. 488 ; Norton v. Marden, 15 Me. 45, 32 Am. Dec. 132; Whea .don v. Olds, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 174 ; Tyler v. Smith, 18 B. Monr. (Ky.) 793; or upon' a consideration which has failed; 3 B. & P. 181; President, etc., of Salem Bank v. Bank, 17 Mass. 1, 9 Am. Dec. 111; Reynolds v. Har ris, 9 Cal. 338; Keene v. Thompson, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 463 ; Lyon v. Amiable, 4 Conn. 350; Pennington v. Clifton, 10 Ind. 172 ; Burch v. Smith, 15 Tex. 224, 65 Am. Dec. 154; see Kitty v. Corn., 18 B. Monr. (Ky.) 523 ; or under an agreement which has been rescind ed without partial performance; 2 C. & P. 514; Holbrook v. Holbrook, 30 Vt. 432; M. E. Church v. Wood, 5 Ohio, 286 ; Dearborn Dearborn, 15 Mass. 319; Gillet v. May nard, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 85, 4 Am. Dec. 329; Dickson v. Cunningham, Mart. & Y. (Tenn.) '203; Wharton v. O'Hara, 2 N. & McC. (S. C.) 65; Randlet v. Herren, 20 N. H. 102; or an common counts for breach of warranty upon the ground that the money was paid without consideration ; Murphy v. McGraw, 74 Mich. 318, 41 N. W. 917; or the owner of stolen money may recover the amoun4 against one with whom it was deposited by the thief, who, after notice, pays it to a third person ; Hindmarch v. Hoffman, 127 Pa. 284, 18 Atl. 14, 4 L R. A. 368, 14 Am. St. Rep. 842; interest paid by mistake on a judgment which did not bear interest is recoverable back ; McMurtry v. R. Co., 84 Ky. 462, 1 S. W. 815; or where a factor disobeys instruc tions and sells grain, deposits made by prin ecipal may be recovered; Larminie v. Carley, 114 Ill. 196, 29 N. E. 382 ; or to recover pur chase money under void contract for sale of lands; Gwin v. Sumr, 49 Mo. App. 361; or to recover money advanced as prepayment of services to be rendered under contract, where contract is not performed ; Trope v. Ass'n, 58 Hun 611, 12 N. Y. Supp. 519 ; or where one receives money for a specific pur pose, but to which he does not apply it, keep ing it for himself ; Barrow v. Barrow, 55 :Hun 505, 8 N. Y. Supp. 783.