were  clearly  of  opinion  that  the  action  was  maintainable  ;  considering  as  it  seemed  that
the  defendant's  house  in  India  had  obtained  the  plaintiffs  acceptance  in  the  first  in-
stance by  a  fraudulent  concealment  of  their  laches,  and  that  the  plaintiff  had  not  volun-
tarily and  with  a  fair  knowledge  of  his  case  submitted  to  pay  it,  but  had  paid  it. from
the  necessity  of  the  thing,  and  under  a  protest  that  if  on  his  arrival  in  India  he  after-
wards found  his  suspicions  confirmed  he  should  call  upon  the  house  there  to  indemnify
him. Ashhurst,  J.,  added,  that  where  a  payment  had  been  made,  not  with  full  knowl-
edge of  the  facts,  but  only  under  a  blind  suspicion  of  the  case,  and  it  was  found  to  have
been  paid  unjustly,  the  party  might  recover  it  back  again. That  here  the  plaintiff  was
under  great  uncertainty  of  the  facts  at  the  time  he  accepted  the  bill,  and  even  if  he  knew
them  all  before  actual  payment  yet  that  his  knowledge  would  have  come  too  late,  and  it
would  have  been  no  answer  to  an  action  by  the  payees  who  were  not  parties  to  the  trans-
action ;  but  that  his  proper  remedy  was  against  those  persons  by  whose  misconduct  he
was  placed  in  that  situation. Grose,  J.,  said  he  had  great  difficulty  in  adopting  the
opinion  of  the  two  other  Judges  to  the  full  extent  of  it  ;  principally  because  he  was  not
satisfied  that  the  plaintiff  had  not  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  ground  of  his  defence
before  payment  of  the  bill,  whatever  he  might  have  had  when  he  accepted  it ;  but  as  the
veidict  was  with  the  honesty  of  the  case,  he  inclined  against  disturbing  it ;  and  the
rather,  because  he  doubted  whether  the  house  in  India  and  that  in  London  were  to  be
considered  as  the  same,  so  that  the  plaintiff  could  have  resisted  the  pajnnent  of  the  bill
to  the  latter,  because  one  of  their  partners  (the  defendant)  was  also  a  partner  in  the
other  house,  though  he  had  no  knowledge  in  fact  of  the  laches. 