Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York v. Battat

• Citation: 78 N.E.2d 465,297 N.Y. 185
• Parties: CHASE NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. BATTAT et al.
• Decision Date: 11 March 1948
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

297 N.Y. 185

78 N.E.2d 465

CHASE NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK

v.BATTAT et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 11, 1948.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by the Chase National Bank of the City of New York against Ezra R. Battat and others, individually and as copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Arbeedee Trading Company, and Caracanda Brothers & Co., Limited, to obtain alternative relief from one of the defendants for the amount paid by the plaintiff on a check drawn by the first named defendant in favor of the last named defendant. From judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department entered June 6, 1947, 272 App.Div. 805, 70 N.Y.S.2d 822, affirming by a divided court, a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the Arbeedee Trading Company, entered in New York County upon an order of the court at Special Term, granting the company's motion for dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed. A. Donald MacKinnon and Eugene H. Nickerson, both of New York City, for appellant.

Leonard G. Bisco and Henry Landau, both of New York City, for Manufacturers Trust Co., amicus curiae, in support of appellant's position.

Chester Rohrlich and Stanley Goldstein, both of New York City, for respondent.

CONWAY, Judge.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff bank against its depositor, herein called ‘Arbeedee’, and Caracanda Bros. & Co. Ltd., herein called ‘Caracanda’, the payee of a check drawn by Arbeedee, to which reference will presently be made. Alternative relief is sought under section 213 of the Civil Practice Act. Section 213 reads as follows: ‘s 213. Where doubt exists as to who is liable. Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he is entitled to redress, he may join two or more defendants, to the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined as between the parties.’

Arbeedee moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action against it. Caracanda was not a party to the motion and is not before us upon this appeal. The matter comes to us after a nonunanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division of an order and judgment dismissing the complaint as a result of the motion.

We had before us recently a question involving the construction of section 213 and other related sections of the Civil Practice Act and we indicated the liberality of construction which should be accorded those statutes so as to attain the proper purposes to be served by them. Great Northern Tel. Co. v. Yokohama Specie Bank, 297 N.Y. 135, 76 N.E.2d 117. The question presented now is whether in seeking redress against these defendants a cause of action has been stated against Arbeedee based upon facts alternatively alleged in accordance with section 241 of the Civil Practice Act, which requires ‘a plain and concise statement of the material facts * * * on which the party pleading relies'. See Best Foods, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd., 224 App.Div. 24, 26, 229 N.Y.S. 364, 366, 367.

The complaint alleges in substance that defendant Arbeedee and defendant Caracanda entered into an agreement for the purchase of sugar which provided that Arbeedee should deliver a check for $25,000 to Caracanda to bind the transaction and that that amount would be returned upon receipt by Caracanda of a letter of credit to be obtained by Arbeedee. On August 9, 1946, Arbeedee drew such a check on its account in the plaintiff bank and delivered it to Caracanda. Thereafter Arbeedee requested plaintiff to stop payment on the check. On August 13, 1946, Caracanda presented the check for certification and it was certified by plaintiff through mistake. On the following day Caracanda presented it for payment and plaintiff paid it. When advised of the payment of the check Arbeedee insisted that plaintiff make no debit against its account asserting that Caracanda had no legal right to the money. Plaintiff thereupon demanded repayment of the $25,000 from Caracanda. That was refused. The complaint then alleges the following:

‘Eleventh: The $25,000 paid by plaintiff to defendant Caracanda was either owed by defendant Arbeedee to defendant Caracanda or defendant Caracanda had no right thereto.

‘Twelfth: If the money was due and owing by defendant Arbeedee to defendant Caracanda, defendant Arbeedee has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff to the extent of $25,000. If the money was not due and owing from defendant Arbeedee to defe...