Majority
Headnote
1. Principal and agent—When relation exists.When the transaction out of which this action arose occurred, the plaintiffs were engaged in business at Grnayaquil, Ecuador, under the firm name of Boca & Henifiques, and Daniel Byrne was a commission merchant, engaged in business in the city of New York. It .is conceded that in February, 1888, Byrne became the agent of the plaintiffs at said city, and so continued until August 2, 1891, when he died. The plaintiffs were accustomed to consign merchandise to Byrne for sale, the proceeds of which were credited to the account of the principals. Byrne also purchased goods at the city of New York for and shipped them to the plaintiffs, which were paid for by the avails of goods
This action was brought to compel the application of as much of said bank account as was necessary to pay the sum due from. Byrne to the plaintiffs, on the theory that the bills of exchange and their avails were received in a fiduciary capacity.
It is alleged in the complaint, and admitted by the answer, that the avails of the four drafts were deposited in the bank at the dates mentioned; and it was conceded on the trial that when this action was begun $4,514.05 of the money derived from the four bills of exchange were on deposit to the credit of said account. The action was defended on the theory that the relation between the parties was that of debtor and creditor. That this relation did exist is quite apparent. Indeed, it is a necessary foundation for the action. But the relation of debtor and creditor is not inconsistent with the relation of principal and agent, and with the position that the sum owing was received in a fiduciary capacity.
How it can be claimed, in the face of these admissions, that Bvrne was not acting in a fiduciary capacity, and that he did not receive these various sums to be expended in the business of the plaintiffs, is quite impossible to see.
The rule is well settled that when an agent receives money or property from his principal, that they may be reclaimed as between the parties, and before other persons have, in good faith, acquired rights in them, so long as the money or the avails of the property can be traced. Knatchbull v. Hallett, L. R., 13 Ch. Div., 696; Pennell v. Deffell, 4 De Gex, M. & G., 372; National Bank v. Ins. Co., 104 U. S., 54 ; Van Alen v. American National Bank, 52 N. Y., 1 ; Newton v. Porter, 69 id., 133 ; Cavin v. Gleason, 105 id., 256; 7 St. Rep., 13 .
In this case it was conceded that the avails of the four bills of exchange sent by the plaintiffs to Byrne were credited to the account, and that more than $4,500 of the moneys so derived were in the bank to the credit of the account when this action was begun. The last two drafts, amounting to $1,039.61, were received after the business relations between the plaintiffs and Byrne were dissolved by the 1 atter’s death, and were appropriated without right by some one assuming to act for Byrne’s estate, and the avails deposited to the credit of this account.
The judgment awarding the plaintiffs the amount due them, to be paid by the bank out of the account, was correct, and should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien, J., concur.