Keiner v. Folsom

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Keiner v. Folsom

79 N.Y.S. 1099

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 N.Y.S. 1099 (Keiner v. Folsom) 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

Keiner v. Folsom, 79 N.Y.S. 1099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

One Levy agreed to pay, as part of the considera_ tion for the purchase of certain realty, upon signing the instrument, $250. This he duly paid in a check drawn to the order of the four persons plaintiffs herein, the vendors. One of the vendors—the plaintiff first named—was not present, but the check was indorsed by or for the other three, and left in the hands of the defendant. Confessedly without any authority so to do, the defendant indorsed Keiner’s name upon the check, adding his own name with “agent,” negotiated the paper, and procured the proceeds himself. When the check was demanded from him, he offered his own for $117.50. This being refused, he raised his offer to $132.50, which latter sum he actually handed to the clerk upon his examination in court. Folsom’s act was simply conversion, an unauthorized assumption and exercise of dominion over what belonged to others. For him tO‘ say he had claims against one or more vendors for commission does not excuse his conduct. Whatever were his claims or pretensions, he was not authorized to resort to such appropriation to make them good. It was error to give judgment for the defendant, and that should be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

One Levy agreed to pay, as part of the considera_ tion for the purchase of certain realty, upon signing the instrument, $250. This he duly paid in a check drawn to the order of the four persons plaintiffs herein, the vendors. One of the vendors—the plaintiff first named—was not present, but the check was indorsed by or for the other three, and left in the hands of the defendant. Confessedly without any authority so to do, the defendant indorsed Keiner’s name upon the check, adding his own name with “agent,” negotiated the paper, and procured the proceeds himself. When the check was demanded from him, he offered his own for $117.50. This being refused, he raised his offer to $132.50, which latter sum he actually handed to the clerk upon his examination in court. Folsom’s act was simply conversion, an unauthorized assumption and exercise of dominion over what belonged to others. For him tO‘ say he had claims against one or more vendors for commission does not excuse his conduct. Whatever were his claims or pretensions, he was not authorized to resort to such appropriation to make them good. It was error to give judgment for the defendant, and that should be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 N.Y.S. 1099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keiner-v-folsom-nyappterm-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack