Dunham v. Cox
| Decision Date | 27 October 1908 |
| Citation | 81 Conn. 268,70 A. 1033 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DUNHAM v. COX. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.
Action by William T. Dunham against Frank S. Cox for conversion of $1,850 cash placed in defendant's custody to be used for a designated purpose, and wrongfully appropriated to his own use. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.
The allegations of the complaint state the following case: The defendant represented to the plaintiff that the defendant was the owner of a piece of land on which one Stevens held a mortgage amounting with interest to $1,850. The defendant desired the plaintiff to take over said mortgage by paying the amount due thereon to said Stevens. The plaintiff undertook to take up said mortgage, and agreed that, upon paying the same he would accept a note of the defendant for the amount so paid secured by a mortgage upon said land. In pursuance of said agreement, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant $1,850 in cash for the purpose of conveying and paying the same to said Stevens as a consideration for the discharge of said mortgage, and for no other purpose. The defendant then undertook to convey and pay the money to said Stevens for the plaintiff and for no other purpose, and, as a receipt for the money, then placed in the plaintiff's hands the note which was thereafter to be secured by mortgage on said premises. The note was not accepted by the plaintiff for any other purpose. The defendant received the money for the purpose stated, but thereafter refused to pay the same to said Stevens in satisfaction of the mortgage, and thereafter fraudulently appropriated the same to his own use, and refused to return the same to the plaintiff when demanded. Upon the trial it was not disputed that $1,850 in cash was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant for the purpose of paying the same to Stevens; but the defendant claimed that the money was loaned to him for that purpose, and that, Stevens having refused to receive it and release the mortgage, defendant thereupon repaid the money to the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, alleging as errors the overruling of the demurrer and the court's exclusion of evidence and refusal to charge as requested.
Leslie W. Newberry and Richard J. Goodman, for appellant.
Albert C. Bill and Joseph P. Tuttle, for appellee.
THAYER, J. (after stating the facts as above). The demurrer was properly overruled. The claims are that cash or money in general without a particular description or means of identification is not such a specific article of property as will sustain an action for the conversion thereof, and that it appears from the complaint that all title to or property in the cash delivered to the defendant passed from the plaintiff at the time of delivery, so that there could have been no wrongful conversion thereof. If it were to be conceded that the first claim is correct, it would not be essential to a good complaint for conversion of the money that the specific bills or coin constituting the sum claimed to be converted should be specifically described in the complaint. Under the complaint the plaintiff might prove the specific items of cash delivered to and claimed to have been converted by the defendant. Ordinarily in actions for conversion only a very general description of the property—as a certain bay horse—is given. Practice Book, p.'328. The identification is matter of proof. It is the fair purport of the language of the complaint that the identical items of cash delivered to the defendant were to be paid by him to Stevens under the agreement with the plaintiff, and that no title to the money passed to the defendant. It was delivered to him and received by him, as alleged, to be conveyed and paid by him to Stevens for the plaintiff, and for no other purpose. And the note was given and received as a receipt for the money and for no other purpose. Upon these allegations it cannot be said that, as claimed by the defendant, the transaction was a loan, and that the title to the money passed to him. The complaint therefore states a good cause of action.
In the defendant's brief upon which the case has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deming v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 17459.
...176 Conn. 657, 662-63, 410 A.2d 465 (1979) (recovery of money wrongfully taken from joint survivorship bank account); Dunham v. Cox, 81 Conn. 268, 270-71, 70 A. 1033 (1908) (recovery of a sum of money entrusted to the defendant for payment to a third person); Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Della......
-
Village Mortgage Co. v. Veneziano
...time had possession of, or legal title to, the money. See e.g., Devitt v. Manulik . . . 176 Conn. [657], 662-63, [410 A.2d 465 (1979)]; Dunham v. Cox . . . 81 Conn. [268], 270-71, [70 A. 1033 (1908)].' . . Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., [ supra, 279 Conn. 772]." Wilcox v. Schmidt, su......
-
Village Mortgage Co. v. Veneziano, LLICV126007694S
...time had possession of, or legal title to, the money. See e.g., Devitt v. Manulik . . . 176 Conn. [657], 662-63, [410 A.2d 465 (1979)]; Dunham v. Cox . . . 81 Conn. [268, 270-71, [70 A. 1033 (1908)].' . . Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., [ supra, 279 Conn. 772]." Wilcox v. Schmidt, sup......
-
Sharkey v. Burlingame Co.
...C. C. Co., 149 F. 1, 78 C. C. A. 615; Barnes v. Starr, 64 Conn. 136, 28 A. 980; Spencer's Appeal, 77 Conn. 638, 60 A. 289; Dunham v. Cox, 81 Conn. 268, 70 A. 1033; Edington v. Fitzmaurice, 29 L. R. 483; 1 Equity Jurisprudence (14 Ed.) § 277; 12 R. C. L. p. 257 and authorities there cited. I......