Thresher v. Stonington Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 25 June 1896
• Citation: 68 Conn. 201,36 A. 38
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: THRESHER v. STONINGTON SAV. BANK.

36 A. 38

68 Conn. 201

THRESHER

v. STONINGTON SAV. BANK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 25, 1896.

Appeal from court of common pleas, New London county; Lucius Brown, Judge.

Suit by Seneca S. Thresher against the Stonington Savings Bank for specific performance. From a judgment for plaintiff for damages, defendant appeals. No error.

Hadlai A. Hull and William F. M. Rogers, for appellant.

Seneca S. Thresher, in pro per.

HAMERSLEY, J. If one receives money of another for an express purpose, and fails to apply it, the amount so received, with interest, can be recovered. Wales v. Wetmore, 3 Day, 252. And it is a general rule that if any one, having received the money of another, retains it without any right conscientiously to do so, such retention is a violation of his duty towards the owner, who may at any time after such breach of duty recover the sum retained with interest (Selleck v. French, 1 Conn. 32; Mason v. Waite, 17 Mass. 558, 562); and in such case, where there is either a precedent debt or duty, a special demand is not necessary (Lyon v. Amiable, 4 Conn. 350, 355). The right to recover springs from a principle peculiar rather to equity than to law (Northrop v. Graves, 19 Conn. 548, 555; Goddard v. Town of Seymour, 30 Conn. 394, 401); and the practice act, in abolishing the fiction which supported the usual action at law for its enforcement, and providing in all civil actions one form for the statement of facts necessary to support a plaintiff's claims, legal or equitable, certainly emphasizes the equitable character of the right. But, though enforceable by remedy at law, the right may also be enforced in equity in a case where equity has rightfully assumed jurisdiction. Downes v. Bristol, 41 Conn. 274. And under the new procedure, facts from which both legal and equitable relief is sought may be presented in one complaint, and in a proper case by a single count. Trowbridge v. True, 52 Conn. 190, 197; Butler v. Barnes, GO Conn. 170, 190, 21 Atl. 419.

Applying these principles to the case in hand, the reasons of appeal assign no error sufficient to set aside the judgment. The complaint alleges a single transaction, in which the plaintiff's money, paid for the specific purpose of being applied to the purchase of the defendant's interest in land, was received by the defendant charged with this trust, and upon demand for a conveyance of that interest the defendant refused to convey, and retained the money. Each material fact alleged by the plaintiff was put in issue by the general denial, and the claims for relief covered each remedy to which the proof might entitle the plaintiff. No objection appears to have been taken by demurrer or otherwise to the form of stating the transaction or the prayer for relief, and no question of this kind, or whether a money judgment would be by way of legal or equitable relief, was raised. The trial court has found the facts alleged to be true. If the court erred in holding that the defendant was estopped from denying a valid agreement on its part to...