Quasi contracts — Unjust enrichment — Money paid under mistake — Recovery from person other than actual recipient — Payment of taxes — Coal mining lease.
1. Where it appeared that plaintiffs, the owners of a coal mining property, let or conveyed the property to defendant, including the right to mine and take away the coal in place, for a term of fifteen years; that defendant was required by the lease to pay rentals, royalties and taxes, the lease providing that the defendant was to pay the taxes to agents of the plaintiffs, who were required to devote the money thus paid to payment of taxes; that during the term of the lease the assessment of the properties for taxation was increased to a sum which was later found, on appeal by plaintiffs to the court, to be excessive, to such an extent as to require an excess tax payment amounting to a specified sum; that the statutory law was such that the taxpayer was obliged to pay the tax as imposed, without regard to the appeal; and that, meanwhile, defendant paid the taxes for the years in question to plaintiffs' agents, who immediately paid them to the municipality, which still retained them; it was held that defendant could not, in an action of assumpsit, enforce its claim against plaintiffs for the amount of the excess tax paid on the theory of a quasi contract to recover for money paid under mistake resulting in the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment. [194-201]
2. The rule that where one makes a payment under a mistake of fact he may recover back the amount of such payment is not applicable where recovery is demanded from a person other than the actual recipient. [196-7]
Landlord and tenant — Coal mining lease — Payment of taxes — Taxes not considered rent — Lease or grant — Right to mine coal to exhaustion — Term of years.
3. Where the contract between plaintiffs and defendant provided that defendant, designated the lessee, was to pay during the term of the lease all taxes imposed by the authorities, that the amounts of the taxes were to be paid to plaintiffs' agent, who was to pay the same to the proper authorities, and that if the taxes were not promptly paid, the lessors might pay the same and distrain therefor as rent or royalty in arrear, such unpaid taxes being considered as part of the rent reserved by the lease; the effect of such provisions was simply that defendant should pay "the taxes", and if it did not, the lessors might distrain for rent if they choose, or they might sue on the lease. [197-9]
4. Where the contract between plaintiffs and defendant provided for a term of fifteen years, with the right of defendant to mine and take away coal in place to the exhaustion of all coal, such instrument, even though in terms a lease, was to be construed as a conveyance of the coal in place. [199-200]
Interest — Liability — Payment of claim admitted to be due — Deposit of money in escrow.
5. The fact that defendant made payment to plaintiffs of another claim which it admitted it owed did not affect the liability of defendant to pay interest on the unpaid claim in question. [202-6]
6. The fact that defendant, pursuant to an agreement of the parties, pending the outcome of litigation, made a deposit in excess of the principal amount due, did not release it from liability for interest until the date of the final judgment. [202-6]
Argued April 22, 1941.
PER CURIAM, May 12, 1941:
The decree is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge FINLETTER of the court below. Costs to be paid by appellant.