Farrell v. Amberg

This action was originally brought to recover the sum of $7,703.35, with interest, the balance claimed to be due

It is not disputed that the pleadings concede that on May 16th, 1891, the Church of St. Francis of Assisi entered into a contract with one Henry H. Amberg, whereby the latter undertook to construct a building for a specified compensation to be paid him by-the former, and that, for the due performance of the contract on his part, he executed and delivered his bond, with plaintiff, as surety; that on July 14th, 1891, Henry H. Amberg assigned the contract to his brother, John L. Amberg; that on the same day John L. Amberg executed his power of attorney to plaintiff whereby the latter was authorized, in the place and stead of the former, “to furnish, complete and finish all the work, labor and materials required to be done and furnished in and by” the building contract above mentioned, and to “ collect and receive all moneys due or to become due on the said contract,” and that the contract, assignment and power of attorney were delivered to plaintiff. The complaint further alleges that the contract was assigned, and the power of attorney executed and delivered, “in purshance of an agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to furnish the money necessary to carry out said contract, and in his own name to make all the purchases of material and to employ and pay all the labor necessary for the execution of said contract, and to complete and finish the work required to be done thereby.” Also, that the assignment was made and the power of attorney given to secure “ the plaintiff all rights to receive the consideration named in said con- • tract,” and that “ the said assignment and power of attorney were executed and delivered, instead of an assignment of said contract, directly to the plaintiff, because of the existence of said bond and to secure the defendant’s rights thereunder.” The fourth paragraph of defendant’s answer specifically admits, in almost identical language, the first above referred to allegation of the complaint, and “that the said assignment and power of attorney were executed, instead of an assignment of the contract, directly to the plaintiff, because of the existence of the said bond and to secure the plaintiff’s rights thereunder,” as alleged in the paragraph of the complaint numbered 1 Fifth,’ ” but denies that the power of attorney and assignments were made pursuant to a suggestion of counsel for the Church of St. Francis of Assisi, or prepared by him for the purpose of securing the plaintiff’s rights in said contract. The eighth paragraph of defendant’s answer alleges “ that the said contract was delivered and the said power of attorney was executed and delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant because the plaintiff had become surety for the said Henry PI. Amberg to the original defendant herein, The Church of St. Francis of Assisi, for the performance of said contract, and

The denials that counsel for the Church of St. Francis of Assisi' suggested the execution and delivery of the instruments, or that he prepared them, intending thereby to afford plaintiff security, are of immaterial matter in view of the admission that defendant, in fact, gave them for the purposes of such security. In construing a pleading resort may be had to its several parts to ascertain what was intended to be alleged or denied, Whitney v. Ticonderoga, 53 Hun, 214 ; 24 St. Rep. 950 , and only that which is fairly implied from the language used will be deemed to be alleged. Cook v. Warren, 88 N. Y. 37 ; The Ogdensburgh Bank v. Van Rensselaer, 6 Hill, 240 . Section 519 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that pleadings shall be liberally construed, applies only to matters of form, Clark v. Dillon et al., 97 N. Y. 370 ; and when a material statement in a pleading is susceptible of two or more different meanings, that which is most unfavorable to the pleader must be accepted as,the one intended. Clark v. Dillon et al., supira; Bunge et al. v. Koop et al., 48 N. Y. 225 , 231.

It is doubtful whether the general denial at the conclusion of the eighth paragraph of the answer is at all available to defendant. Baylis v. Stinson, 110 N. Y. 621 , 623; 16 St. Rep. 175 . -The complaint also alleges that the work required to be done under the building contract had been fully and completely performed, and that the plaintiff had paid, laid out and expended all moneys required in that behalf for labor and materials; and the answer ■ admitted the performance, but denied the advance of any moneys by the plaintiff. Defendant, by answer, furthermore claimed that the plaintiff had been fully reimbursed for all moneys advanced, and was saved harmless from all liability under his bond by the due and complete performance of the contract and acceptance of the work by the Church of St. Francis of Assisi. Three distinct and separate defenses, two of which were asserted also as offsets and counterclaims, and the other as a defense and offset only, were interposed to the complaint. One of these defenses and counterclaims charges the plaintiff with the conversion of money received under the building contract, but this is conceded to be sufficiently denied by the reply. The other defense and counterclaim alleges the facts of the delivery of the contract, assignment and power of

For the reasons hereinbefore stated, therefore, when the action proceeded to tidal, the following also were among the admitted facts: That the building contract, as well as the assignment thereof to Henry H. Arnberg, and the power of attorney from the defendant to the plaintiff, were delivered to the plaintiff pursuant to an agreement that the plaintiff should be by their means secured against all liability under his bond for the performance of the building contract, as well as for all moneys advanced by the plaintiff in the performance of the contract. The only testimony taken was that of the plaintiff, which was to the effect that the contract, assignment and power of attorney were delivered to him simultaneously, that the work called for by the contract was done, and that he had paid all the money required for labor and ma

The referee’s findings of fact are consistent with all the admitted facts and plaintiff’s testimony. No error is, therefore, predicable of the referee’s refusal to find to the contrary. The power of attorney also was one coupled with an interest. Hence the referee’s conclusions that the power of attorney was not revocable, and was not revoked by the service of defendant’s notice of revocation, in the absence of proof that the plaintiff was reimbursed for his outlays by his receipt of moneys which had accrued under the building contract, or otherwise, cannot be successfully controverted. “ As the power of one man to act for another depends on the will and license of that other, the power ceases when the will, or his permission, is withdrawn. The general rule, therefore, is, that a letter of attorney may, at any time, be revoked by the party who makes it; and is revoked by his death. But this general rule, which results from the nature of the act, has sustained some modification. Where a letter of attorney forms a part of a contract, and is a security for money, or for the performance of any act which is deemed valuable; it is generally made irrevocable in terms, or, if not so, is deemed irrevocable in law. Although a letter of attorney depends, from its nature, on the will of the person making it, and may, in general, be recalled at his will, yet, if he binds himself for a consideration, in terms or by the nature of his contract, not to change his will, the law does not permit him to change it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174 ; see, also, Knapp v. Alvord, 10 Paige, 205; Raymond v. Squire, 11 Johns. 47 ; De Forest v. Bates, 1 Edw., Ch. 394 ; Hutchins v. Hebbard, 34 N. Y. 24 . A power of attorney to collect a fund, given to secure the payment of a debt due from the donor to the donee of the power, operates as an equitable assignment of the fund. Raymond v. Squire; De Forest v. Bates, supra ; Wilson v. Troup, 2 Cowen, 195. An equitable assignment is none the less so because the interest it conveys is qualified and conditional. Holmes et al. v. Evans et al., 129 N. Y. 140 ; 41 St. Rep. 365 .

We assume that the plaintiff’s liability upon his bond, given to secure the due performance of the building contract with the Church of St. Francis of Assisi, had ceased, and that to that extent his interest in the moneys to be collected upon the contract had reverted to defendant; but it still remained to show, to extinguish the plaintiff’s remaining interest in the moneys, that he had. been reimbursed for all moneys paid, laid out and expended by him. That fact was not admitted by the pleadings or on the

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Bookstaver, P. J., and Pryor, J., concur.