The plaintiff advanced $100,000 to the defendant, his nephew by marriage.
The plaintiff claimed the advance was a demand loan, while the defendant argued it was partial payment of a debt owed to him by the plaintiff's spouse under a separate business agreement.
The court found that the advance was a demand loan, as there was no written guarantee by the plaintiff for his spouse's alleged debt, and the business agreement lacked consideration and was not legally binding.
The court rejected the defendant's claim for equitable set-off and held, in the alternative, that the defendant was unjustly enriched.
Judgment was granted for the plaintiff for $100,000 plus costs.
