Banner v. D'Auby

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Banner v. D'Auby

34 Misc. 525, 69 N.Y.S. 891

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Misc. 525 (Banner v. D'Auby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banner v. D'Auby, 34 Misc. 525, 69 N.Y.S. 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Bischoff, P. J.

The action is to recover money in the hands of the defendant, received by him as attorney-at-law when engaged in collecting certain claims for the plaintiff’s assignor, and which money he had failed to pay over after demand. Apparently the complaint is framed in assumpsit and does not proceed for tort, but, whether the action is to be treated as for conversion or for money had and received, proof of a demand was an essential of the plaintiff’s case, and the making of the demand was placed in issue by the answer. Admittedly the original receipt of the money by the defendant was lawful; therefore, without a demand, there could be no conversion, and a demand must be made before an action may be maintained to recover moneys of the client alleged to be in the hands of the attorney. Grinnell v. Sherman, 38 N. Y. St. Repr. 587-580. In the absence of the slightest proof that any demand was made, the plaintiff was properly non-suited, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Leveetritt and Clarke, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bischoff, P. J.

The action is to recover money in the hands of the defendant, received by him as attorney-at-law when engaged in collecting certain claims for the plaintiff’s assignor, and which money he had failed to pay over after demand. Apparently the complaint is framed in assumpsit and does not proceed for tort, but, whether the action is to be treated as for conversion or for money had and received, proof of a demand was an essential of the plaintiff’s case, and the making of the demand was placed in issue by the answer. Admittedly the original receipt of the money by the defendant was lawful; therefore, without a demand, there could be no conversion, and a demand must be made before an action may be maintained to recover moneys of the client alleged to be in the hands of the attorney. Grinnell v. Sherman, 38 N. Y. St. Repr. 587-580. In the absence of the slightest proof that any demand was made, the plaintiff was properly non-suited, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Leveetritt and Clarke, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 525, 69 N.Y.S. 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banner-v-dauby-nyappterm-1901.