(After stating-Me foregoing faits.)^ :Even where money is paid under a mistake, or in ignorance of facts, it can"- riot' be' recovered unless the circumstances' are such' that "the party receiving it ought not, in equity- and good consciendé) to retain it. Atlanta Telephone Co. v. Fain, 16 Ga. App. 475 (2) (85 S. E. 791). The instant petition, construed most strongly against the1 plaintiff, fails to allege that through the years in iwíiich hé *739 paid the premiums-to the defendant company he did not receive the insurance protection provided in his insurance contract.- The petition alleges that the defendant company acquired or assumed the policy from a receiver in the State of Alabama, but fails to set forth any of the circumstances of the assumption. In the absence of any allegation of facts to the contrary, it will be assumed that the defendant acquired the policy in a legal manner, and that the terms thereof became binding obligations on the defendant. It could not have escaped liability on the -policy because the insured had not been notified of the assumption of the' policy -and had not expressly assented thereto. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Benton, 56 Ga. App. 298 (192 S. E. 520) .

It follows that the allegations of-the petition that the terms of the policy were not binding on the defendant,-and that it “had re-' ceived something for .nothing,” and "couhT-not-in equity -and good conscience retain the money paid-to fit: by-the plaintiff, "were mere conclusions of the pleader which were not supported 'by the facts, set forth in the petition. On the contrary, the facts alleged and the law applicable thereto show that- the defendant had provided insurance protéction for the plaintiff for more than twelve years, and that it could, in equity and good conscience, retain" the money sued for. It was not error to sustain the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.