Mechanics' Bank v. Woodward

• Decision Date: 09 May 1902
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MECHANICS' BANK v. WOODWARD.

51 A. 1084

74 Conn. 689

MECHANICS' BANK

v. WOODWARD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 9, 1902.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; John M. Thayer, Judge.

Action by the Mechanics' Bank against Charles E. Woodward for money given to defendant's wife on the discount of notes purporting to be signed by him. Judgment for plaintiff for a portion of the demand, and both parties appeal. Affirmed.

There was a former action, founded on the same transactions, for money borrowed by defendant, acting by his wife as agent, and a Judgment for defendant was reversed. 73 Conn. 470, 47 Atl. 762.

William B. Stoddard and Robert C. Stoddard, for plaintiff.

James H. Webb, for defendant.

BALDWIN, J. This case was previously before us on a somewhat different complaint Bank v. Woodward, 73 Conn. 470, 47 Atl. 762. That now filed by way of substitution for the original one sets up that the defendant's wife obtained the money in controversy upon notes purporting to be signed by him, and that the defendant received and used it for his own benefit. There was no error in allowing such a substitution. The new complaint is merely another form of stating the same transaction on which the suit was originally founded. It was met by a demurrer, which was overruled. Whether it would have been sufficient to support the judgment had the defendant not answered over, it is unnecessary to determine. Filing an answer after demurrer overruled does not waive the right to appeal after final judgment from the interlocutory judgment upon the demurrer. Hunter's Appeal, 71 Conn. 189, 41 Atl. 557. But it does not follow that a reason of appeal of that nature is to be decided without reference to the proceedings following the answer. If these, without the imposition of any new and improper burden upon the defendant, result in a judicial finding by which the facts alleged are supported, and their legal effect broadened by other facts not specifically alleged, but within the issue, this court is not to shut its eyes to the finding, and consider the demurrer as if it had been the termination of the pleadings. We do not sit to try moot cases. Having now all the facts before us, we are not required to rule upon what would be the result of some of them if standing alone. Errors of law constitute no ground of reversal if they "are immaterial, or such as have not injuriously affected the appellant." Pub. Acts 1897, p. 892. § 15.

The finding shows that the defendant put $1,750 in his wife's hands in February, 1888, to be lent for his benefit to an acquaintance of hers, doing business in New York, on a note of the latter, payable in six months, with interest. In September, 1898, she procured the discount by the plaintiff of a note for $800, purporting to bear the defendant's signature, but in fact a forgery, received a check in his favor for the proceeds, forged his indorsement upon it, and so got the money. Shortly before this he had been sued by one Hoadley on another note purporting to bear his signature, which she had forged, and in that action his real property had been attached. Of the money obtained from the plaintiff she used $522 to settle the Hoadley suit, and paid $100 to the defendant, telling him that she had received both these sums for him from her New York acquaintance, which he believed. In December, 1898, Mrs. Woodward procured the discount by the plaintiff of a note for $300, purporting to bear the defendant's signature, but in fact a forgery, and the proceeds were deposited with the plaintiff to her individual credit. She at once checked out $200, and gave it to the defendant, telling him that she had just received it for him from the New York investment. This sum he used for his own benefit. He knew at this time that the $1,750 had not been lent to the person whose note he had agreed to take, but supposed that the $200 came from some other investment of his funds in New York which his wife had made. A few days later a bill was presented to the defendant for $44.67 for dry goods purchased by his wife, and he was told by the party presenting it that his wife had a deposit in the plaintiff bank. He thereupon told his wife to pay it, and she did by a check against this deposit, which consisted of the balance of the proceeds of the $300 note. The plaintiff discounted both notes in good faith, believing her to be acting as the anthorized agent of the defendant. Since the transactions in suit the defendant has been divorced from her. It thus appears that Mrs. Woodward had been made her husband's agent to invest $1,750 for six months, and that not long after that period had elapsed he received from her moneys which she had wrongfully and fraudulently procured on his credit from the plaintiff, but which she told him, and he believed, were the fruits of her investment for him. $344.67 of the plaintiff's money has been thus traced into his...