Chapter House Circle of King's Daughters v. Hartford Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1938 |
| Citation | 199 A. 110,124 Conn. 151 |
| Parties | CHAPTER HOUSE CIRCLE OF KING'S DAUGHTERS v. HARTFORD NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Edward J. Quinlan Judge.
Action by the Chapter House Circle of the King's Daughters against the Hartford National Bank & Trust Company to recover damages for an alleged breach of trust. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
A plaintiff is not entitled to recover counsel fees made necessary by an attempt to secure something to which in law it had no right.
Arthur E. Howard, Jr., of Hartford, for appellant.
Wallace W. Brown and Charles Welles Gross, both of Hartford for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.
The complaint in this case alleged that the plaintiff had intrusted the defendant with money and a note secured by a mortgage under an agreement that the defendant would act as the plaintiff's financial agent, with authority to invest the fund at the discretion of the defendant's proper officers; that the defendant invested about $6,500 in a note and mortgage which it held in its individual name; that the plaintiff did not know that the note and mortgage were so held; and that on discovering this fact it had ‘ refused to affirm’ the transaction and demanded to be reimbursed the amount of the money invested in the mortgage. The parties filed in the trial court a stipulation that ‘ the facts of the case’ were as therein stated. The trial court upon the basis of that stipulation gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover the amount of the fund invested in the mortgage note. On appeal we held that the defendant had committed a breach of trust in investing the money of the plaintiff in a note and mortgage in its individual name instead of in its name as trustee, but that, as it had acted in good faith, in accordance with established banking practice and believing it was not proceeding improperly, it should not be held liable for any damage which was not directly caused by the breach of trust and that, as it did not appear that the plaintiff had suffered any such damage, there was no basis in the record as it then stood for an award to it of more than nominal damages. Accordingly, we found error and remanded the case to the trial court with direction to enter judgment for the plaintiff to recover substantial damages should it prove itself entitled to them in accordance with the opinion, otherwise to recover nominal damages. Chapter House Circle of King's Daughters v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co., 121 Conn. 558, 186 A. 543, 106 A.L.R. 260.
It appears from the stipulation that, there having been a default in payments due under the mortgage, the defendant had foreclosed it, taken title, and subsequently offered to convey the property to the plaintiff. When the case came again before the superior court, the plaintiff sought to offer evidence that the value of the property was substantially greater than the amount of the note secured, claiming that, if it should prove that value to be such that the bank would suffer no loss if it became owner of the property in its own right, the plaintiff was entitled to disavow the transaction and recover the money invested in the mortgage. The plaintiff also sought to introduce evidence that under its charter the plaintiff could not legally hold such real estate as that which was mortgaged to secure the note, that an investment in the property would be of a speculative nature, not suitable for such an organization as the plaintiff, and that the affairs of the plaintiff were managed by women unfamiliar with business transactions. The purpose for which this evidence was claimed was to show that in equity the plaintiff should not be left with the property on its hands. The trial court excluded the evidence and upon the facts recited in the stipulation gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover nominal damages only.
In our former opinion (121 Conn. 558, at page 564, 186 A. 543, 545, 106 A.L.R. 260) we stated: ‘ The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant by investing the fund in a note and mortgage in which it was named payee and grantee in its individual capacity, instead of in its capacity as financial agent for the plaintiff, committed a breach of trust such that the plaintiff might disavow the transaction, and, having done so,...
To continue reading
Request your trial