Sanitary Can Co. v. Mullins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanitary Can Co. v. Mullins

86 A.D. 450, 83 N.Y.S. 918, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2388

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D. 450 (Sanitary Can Co. v. Mullins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanitary Can Co. v. Mullins, 86 A.D. 450, 83 N.Y.S. 918, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, J. :

The issue is whether the defendant, who was treasurer of the plaintiff corporation, converted its funds. The funds were the proceeds of a check received' by the defendant from a debtor of the corporation. The defendant deposited them in a bank to the credit of [451]*451“ Robert F. Mullins, Treas.” He made withdrawals therefrom by checks thus signed, and applied the money to various purposes. He contends that those purposes were legitimate, and the plaintiff denies it. The learned counsel for the appellant asked an officer of the plaintiff: “ Is there any by-law which provides how the company’s money shall be withdrawn from any depositaries % ” This was met by a general objection. In answer to a question by the court as to its materiality, the counsel stated that there was a bylaw which provided that the checks should be drawn only when signed by the president and countersigned by the treasurer. The court thereon excluded the question as not material. I think that this was error which requires a reversal of the judgment. The defendant, as treasurer, was a mere depositary, without title to the corporate funds in his possession, charged with the duty to keep them and to disburse them in accordance with the directions of the corporation. (Taylor v. Taylor, 74 Maine, 582.) If the defendant deposited the money, and thereafter drew it out contrary to the rules formulated by his principal, such an act would tend to prove, a conversion. (Laverty v. Snethen, 68 N. Y. 522.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs; to abide the event.

Goodrich, P. J., Bartlett and Woodward, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Jenks, J. :

The issue is whether the defendant, who was treasurer of the plaintiff corporation, converted its funds. The funds were the proceeds of a check received' by the defendant from a debtor of the corporation. The defendant deposited them in a bank to the credit of [451]*451“ Robert F. Mullins, Treas.” He made withdrawals therefrom by checks thus signed, and applied the money to various purposes. He contends that those purposes were legitimate, and the plaintiff denies it. The learned counsel for the appellant asked an officer of the plaintiff: “ Is there any by-law which provides how the company’s money shall be withdrawn from any depositaries % ” This was met by a general objection. In answer to a question by the court as to its materiality, the counsel stated that there was a bylaw which provided that the checks should be drawn only when signed by the president and countersigned by the treasurer. The court thereon excluded the question as not material. I think that this was error which requires a reversal of the judgment. The defendant, as treasurer, was a mere depositary, without title to the corporate funds in his possession, charged with the duty to keep them and to disburse them in accordance with the directions of the corporation. (Taylor v. Taylor, 74 Maine, 582.) If the defendant deposited the money, and thereafter drew it out contrary to the rules formulated by his principal, such an act would tend to prove, a conversion. (Laverty v. Snethen, 68 N. Y. 522.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs; to abide the event.

Goodrich, P. J., Bartlett and Woodward, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D. 450, 83 N.Y.S. 918, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanitary-can-co-v-mullins-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack