Titus v. Wallick

• Decision Date: 19 July 1932
• Citation: 184 N.E. 75,260 N.Y. 519
• Parties: Edward H. TITUS, Respondent, v. Lou C. WALLICK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

260 N.Y. 519

184 N.E. 75

Edward H. TITUS, Respondent,

v.Lou C. WALLICK, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 19, 1932.

Appeal from a judgment, entered March 16, 1932, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (235 App. Div. 662, 255 N. Y. S. 905), reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff upon new findings. The action was brought to compel the return by defendant to plaintiff of certificates of stock in a corporation and for an accounting. The complaint alleged that plaintiff was the owner of an interest in the corporation represented by the certificates of stock in question, and that the defendant and another were owners of the balance of the stock; that plaintiff at the request of defendant pledged his stock as collateral security for the payment of an indebtedness that had been incurred by defendant and the other stockholder for the benefit of the corporation; that subsequently, on the representation of defendant, who had since become the owner of the entire balance of the stock of the corporation, that in order to enable him successfully to advance the interests and prosperity of the corporation, some written evidence of authority to use plaintiff's certificates was necessary, and, at defendant's request, plaintiff signed a paper purporting to transfer to defendant's attorney plaintiff's certificates of stock, it being agreed by defendant that matters would be worked out so that the certificates could and would be restored to plaintiff; that the execution of the paper was intended to be and in fact was for the sole benefit of defendant, and that any relation thereto on the part of the attorney was solely for and on behalf of defendant; that any loans or transactions in connection wherewith the certificates could lawfully be pledged by defendant had been fully canceled and discharged; and that defendant on frequent occasions had promised and agreed to return the certificates and to render a full accounting to plaintiff, but had failed to do so, after demand duly made on him.

James F. Donnelly, Mark Eisner, Samuel Michelman, and Victor S. Gettner, all of New York City, for appellant.

Thomas I. Sheridan, Lewis F. Glaser, Aaron Frank, and Philip Warren, all of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

POUND. C. J., and CRANE, LEHMAN, KEL...