Money paid for the usd of another, includ ing negotiable securities; Merchants' Bank v. Cook, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 414; Pearson v. Par ker, 3 N. H. 366 ; Mason v. Franklin, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 206; Craig v. Craig, 5 Rawle (Pal) 91; Lapham v. Barnes, 2 Vt. 213 ; McLellan v. Crofton, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 331; where the plaintiff can show a previous request; Webb v. Cole, 20 N. H. 490; or subsequent assent;, Packard v. Lienow, 12 Mass. 11; Tuttle v. Armstead, 53 Conn. 175, 22 AU. 677 ; Wolff v. Matthews, 39 Mo. App. 376; or that he paid it for a reasonable cause, and not officiously; 3 M. & W. 607; Skillin v. Merer1TRASs-:- 40; Ebel v. Chandler, 93 Cal. 372, 28 Pac. 934 ; Lovejoy v. Chandler, '93 Cal. 376, 28 Pac. 935; Graham v. Dunigan, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 516 ; 14 Q. B. D. 811; L. R. 3 C. P. 38 ; Teener Quasi Cont. 388; but a Mere volun tary payment of another's debt will not make the paying his creditor ; Vanderhey den v. Mallory, 1 N. Y. 472 ; Turner v. Eger ton, 1 Gill & J. (Md.) 433, 19 Am. Dec. 235; Mayor, etc., of Baltimore v. Hughes' Adm'r, 1 Gill & J. (Md.) 497, 19 Am. Dee. 243; Rens selaer Glass Factory v. Reid, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 603; Calhoun v. Cozens, 3 Ala. 500; Webb v. Cole, 20 N. H. 490.
Money lent, including negotiable securities of such a character as to be essentially mon ey; 11 Jur. 157, 289; Payson v. Whitcomb, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 212; Crandal v. Bradley, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 311; Penn v. Flack, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 369; Edgerton v. Brackett, 11 N. H. 218 ; Fairbanks v. Stanley, 18 Me. 296; Peniston v. Wall's Adm'x, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 37; Hart v. Connor, 21 Ga. 384; ac tually loaned by the plaintiff to the defend ant himself ; 1 Dane, Abr. 196.
Money found to be due upon an account stated, called an insimal computassent, for the balance so found to be due, without re gard to the nature of the evidences of the original debt; 3 B. & C. 196; Danforth v. Turnpike Road, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 227; Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 358, 4 Am. Dec. 145 ; Fitch v. Leitch, 11 Leigh (Va.) 471; Burnham v. Spooner, 10 N. H. 532 ; Richey v. Hathaway, 149 Pa. 207, 24 Atl. 191.
Goods sold and delivered either in accord ance with a previous request; 9 Conn. 379; Lyles v. Lyles' Ex'rs, 6 Harr. & J. (Md.) 273; Rogers v. Verona, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 417; Keyser v. Dist. No. 8, 35 N. H. 477 ; Abbott v. Coburn, 28 Vt. 666, 67 Am. Dec. 735; Phil adelphia Co. v. Park Bros. & Co., 138 Pa. 346, 22 Atl. 86 ; or where the defendant re ceives and uses them; Jenkins v: Richardson, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 441, 22 Am. Dec. 82 ; Kupfer v. Inhabitants of South Parish in Augusta, 12 Mass. 185 ; Emerson v. Mc Namara, 41 Me. 565; although tortiously ; Hill v. Davis, 3 N. H. 384; Floyd v. Wiley, 1 Mo. 430 ; Floyde v. Wiley, id. 643. See Jones v. Hoar, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 285; TROVER.
Work performed; James v. Bixby, 11 Ma
37 ; McDaniel v. .one by one in the king's v. Buzzard, 1 Hempst. 240, Fed. Cas. No. 7,206a; Trammell v. Lee County, 94 Ala. 194, 10 South. 213; Blakeslee v. Holt, 42 Conn. 226; Whelan v. Clock Co., 97 N. Y: 293; and materials furnished; Hayward v. Leonard, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 181, 19 Am. Dec. 268; with the knowledge of the defendant ; Bartholo mew v. Jackson, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 28, 11 Am. Dec. 237; Hort v. Norton, 1 McCord (S. C.) §2; McDaniel v. Parks, 19 Ark. 671; so that he derives benefit therefrom; Lowe v. Sink lear, 27 Mo. 308; Felton v. Simpson, 33 N. C. 84; whether there be an express contract or not. Also, where there is an express promise to pay for extra work, although the contract requires that the estimate should be in writing ; Hughes v. Torgerson, 96 Ala. 348, 11 South. 209, 16 L. R. A. 600, 38 Am. St. Rep. 105. As to whether anything can be recovered where the contract is to work a specified time and the labor is performed during a portion of that time only, see Pro vost v. Harwood, 29 Vt. 219; Ryan v. Day ton, 25 Conn. 188, 65 Am. Dec. 560; Allen v. Curies, 6 Ohio St. 505; Hughes v. Cannon, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 622; Wolfe v. Howes, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 174; Downey v. Burke, 23 Mo. 228. Services performed by relatives for one in his lifetime, but in the absence of an express or implied contract for payment, can not be recovered for after his death ; Patter son v. Collar, 31 Ill. App. 340. One may re cover for work and material on an implied assumpsit although the work is destroyed be fore its completion; Butterfield v. Byron, 153 Mass. 517, 27 N. E. 667, 12 L. R. A. 571, 25 Am. St. Rep: 654.
Use and occupation of the plaintiff's prem ises under a parol contract express or im plied; Loghn v. Lewis, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 6; Osgood v. Dewey, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 240; Eppes' Ex'rs v. Cole, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 161, 4 Am. Dec. 512 ; Brewer v. Craig, 18 N. J. L. 214; Lloyd v. Hough, 1 How. (U. S.) 153, 11 L. Ed. 83 ; Phelps v. Conant, 30 Vt. 277; Crommelin v. Thiess, 31 Ala. 412, 70 Am. Dec. 499; Howe v. Russell, 41 Me. 446; Sampson v. Shaeffer, 3 Cal. 196; Theological Institute of Connecticut v. Barbour, 4 Gray (Mass.) 329; but not if it be tortious ; Ryan v. Marsh's Adm'r, 2 N. & McC. (S. C.) 156; Henwood v. Cheeseman, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 500 ; De Young v. Buchanan, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 149, 32 Am. Dec. 156; Wiggin v. Wiggin, 6 N. H. 298; Strong v. Garfield, 10 Vt. 502; or where defendant enters under a contract for a deed ; Smith v. Stewart, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 46, 5 Am. Dec. 186 ; Vandenheuvel v. Storrs, 3 Conn. 203; Jones v. Tipton, 2 Dana (Ky.) 295. The relation of landlord and tenant must exist expressly or impliedly ; Chambers v. Ross, 25 N. J. L. 293 ; Newby v. Vestal, 6 Ind. 412; Williams v. Hollis, 19 Ga. 313.