https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292996 Amounts paid under decrees that were later reversed or superseded were recoverable in restitution because the original decrees ceased to provide a valid legal basis for retention of the money. Section 16 of Regulation III of 1793 did not bar the suit, as it prevented reopening only of the same cause or question already finally heard and determined, not a claim arising from subsequent appellate events that altered the controversy. The earlier decrees were subordinate to the appellate order, which displaced them and governed the parties' rights and liabilities. The restitution claim was therefore maintainable and the objection based on the regulation failed. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 1865 00:00:00 +0553 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:16:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292996 Amounts paid under decrees that were later reversed or superseded were recoverable in restitution because the original decrees ceased to provide a valid legal basis for retention of the money. Section 16 of Regulation III of 1793 did not bar the suit, as it prevented reopening only of the same cause or question already finally heard and determined, not a claim arising from subsequent appellate events that altered the controversy. The earlier decrees were subordinate to the appellate order, which displaced them and governed the parties' rights and liabilities. The restitution claim was therefore maintainable and the objection based on the regulation failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Mar 1865 00:00:00 +0553 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292996