Caswell v. Putnam — 4 N.Y. St. Rep. 106

Majority

p. 106

William Caswell, Resp’t, v. Nathaniel D. Putnam et al., App’lts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed October 15, 1886.)

Headnote

Conversion — Unauthorized sale of stock — Sale without authority FROM THE OWNER CONSTITUTES A CONVERSION — OWNER MAY SUE FOR DAMASES OR TO RECOVER THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE — NOT BOUND BY UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF HIS BROKERS.

Shares of stock were purchased hy defendants for plaintiff under an order communicated to them by their agent M. On July 81,1882, M., ordered them to sell the shares, which they did at a profit. This order was given without the knowledge or authority of plaintiff. Afterwards other purchases and sales of stock were made by defendants under the direction of M., without the knowledge or authority of plaintiff but in his name. March, 1884, plaintiff still supposing the shares he had directed to be purchased and which were in fact first purchased for him, were held by defendants directed them to sell the shares. They did sell that number of shares of the stock in compliance with the direction charging him therewith and rendered him an account stating therein all the dealings had in his name, which he disaffirmed except the one of July, 1882. Held, that plaintiff could affirm the unauthorized sale of July 81, 1882, and disaffirm all the other sales. That the order he gave for the sale of his shares in March was wholly inoperative, defendants having ceased to hold them for him. That his right of action had accrued, although it was without his knowledge, and it could not be afterwards divested by his order to sell what had been then disposed of.

Appeal from a judgment on the report of a referee.. Wager Swayne, for appl’ts; Thomas Thacher, for resp’t.

The action was for the amount realized by way of profit on the sale by the defendants as stockholders . of one hundred shares of the stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. The shares were purchased by the

p. 107

defendants for the plaintiff under an order communicated to them by their agent William G. Morgan. On the 31st day of July, 1883, he ordered them to sell the shares, which they did, obtaining the advance thereby on the cost which the plaintiff has been adjudged entitled to recover. This order was given without the knowledge or authority of the plaintiff. And the shares being at the time his property, the sale made of them was in judgment of law a conversion of the shares, although the defendants made it m good faith, supposing that the plaintiff had authorized it. For any disposition of another’s property without his authority or consent is a conversion of it by the person or persons disposing of it. Boyce v. Brockway, 31 N. Y , 490 ; Spraights v. Hawley, 39 id., 441.

By this conversion of the shares the defendants turned the property into money. And to redress the wrong which the defendants were chargeable with by making this change in the property, the plaintiff had an election of remedies. He could either bring an action for the conversion or for the proceeds of the shares, as so much money received for his use, by the defendants. Strong v. Mechanics Bank, 45 N. Y., 718 ; Abbott v. Blossom, 66 Barb., 353 ; Taussig v. Hart, 58 N. Y., 425 ; Comstock v. Hier, 73 id., 269.

And the latter seems to have been the course adopted in the action, as the recovery was measured by the amount the plaintiff was entitled to out of the proceeds of the sale.

After the time when this sale took place other purchases and sales of stock were made by the defendants under the directions of their agent Morgan, without the knowledge or authority of the plaintiff, but in his name. And he in March, 1884, still supposing and believing that the shares he had ordered to be purchased, and which in fact were purchased for him, were held for him by the defendants, directed them to sell the shares, and they did sell that number of Union Pacific shares in compliance with that direction, charging him with the loss resulting from the sale. They also rendered him an account, stating the dealings in stocks had through them in his name, but which he, with the exception of the sale made on the last day of July, disaffirmed after the facts came to his knowledge. The defendants have denied his right to do that, insisting that he should either affirm or disaffirm these dealings in toto. And authorities have been cited by the learned counsel for the defendants maintaining that to be the law applicable to the dealings of a principal with his agents. But this case is not within that legal rule. For the only dealings had between the plaintiff and defendants was their purchase of the one hundred shares of stock for him which they sold without his authority on the 31st day of July, 1883.

p. 108

And it is wholly out of that dealing and sale that Ms legal rights and their obligations have arisen. What was after-wards done while it was m his name were not dealings with the plaintiff, but with their own agent, who for that purpose fraudulently made use of the plaintiff’s name. It was not a wrong which he was in any manner connected with or responsible for. But it was the wrong of the defendant’s own agent, perpetrated by him on them, and for the consequences of which he alone is legally liable to indemnify them. The plaintiff was in no way, either in fact or law, privy to these dealings, and in no way affected by them. The order he gave for the sale of his shares in March was wholly inoperative, for the reason that the defendants had long before that time ceased to hold those shares for him. Their rights and obligations had then become fixed. His right of action had accrued, although it was without his knowledge. And it could not be afterwards divested by his order to sell what had then been disposed of and was beyond the power or control of the defendants, nor by the unauthorized and fraudulent acts of the defendant’s own agent, having no power whatever to represent the plaintiff. McKnight v. Dunlop, 1 Seld., 537, 544.

These facts furnished no legal defence to the action, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Brady, J., concurs.