https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288083 Payments made to defendants for pledged goods during wartime were held to have been made under binding agreements entered into by the liquidator in the course of winding up and validated by statute, thereby precluding restitution. The court found no payment "by mistake" and concluded that the agreements were not void, so the doctrine of advantage received did not permit recovery. Because defendants changed position in reliance on the liquidator's binding promise, they were entitled to retain earmarked proceeds of cotton bales as agreed; plaintiffs' claims to recover the sale proceeds accordingly fail. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 1919 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2020 18:08:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288083 Payments made to defendants for pledged goods during wartime were held to have been made under binding agreements entered into by the liquidator in the course of winding up and validated by statute, thereby precluding restitution. The court found no payment "by mistake" and concluded that the agreements were not void, so the doctrine of advantage received did not permit recovery. Because defendants changed position in reliance on the liquidator's binding promise, they were entitled to retain earmarked proceeds of cotton bales as agreed; plaintiffs' claims to recover the sale proceeds accordingly fail. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Jul 1919 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288083