Baker v. Moore

The plaintiff and Abel Scripture, deceased, the defendant’s testator, in the year 1865 entered into a contract to purchase lots 3 and 5, range 9, Dartmouth patent, great tract, situate in Warren county, N. Y. The plaintiff desired lot 3 for “the bark on it,” but did not wish to buy lot 5, which was “ a spruce lot.” It was finally agreed that Scripture should purchase the two lots for $1,500, taking a deed to himself and the plaintiff; she to furnish one-half of the purchase price. Pursuant to such arrangement, in December, 1865, plaintiff advanced to Scripture $300, and in the following spring a further sum of $300. In 1866, and it may be assumed in anticipation of the delivery of the deed of the lots, Scripture, with the knowledge of the plaintiff, sold a quantity of logs from lot 5, for which he received the sum of $700. It was agreed that the balance of the purchase price for said lots—$150—due from the plaintiff, should come out of her share of the sum received for the logs sold, leaving a balance of $200 due on her account of said sale, less whatever sum might be arrears for taxes on 0the lots. It does not appear that this sum was ever paid, or that the plaintiff ever demanded it, or called upon Scripture for an account or settlement in regard thereto. In the transaction the plaintiff’s husband, John P. Baker, acted as her agent, and he was produced and sworn by her as a witness on the trial. The evidence does not show that after advancing the $600 on the purchase price of said two lots, and the agreement with Scripture that the balance thereof should come out of the money received for the logs, plaintiff or her, agent paid any attention to her interest in said lots until four or five years before the trial (probably about 1886 or 1887), nearly twenty years after the transaction. On or about August 22, 1867, Scripture obtained a deed of the said two lots, taking the title to himself alone without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, as it is claimed; the deed received by him being recorded in the clerk’s office of Warren county on January 3, 1868. On or about November 28, 1867, Scripture sold 3 for $1,200 to B. P. and F. V. Burhans by deed recorded in the Warren county clerk’s office on the 6th day of January,. 1868; and on or about January 30, 1871, lot 5, for $1,000, to one Ordway,. by deed recorded in the same clerk’s office oh the 27th day of June, 1891. Whether Scripture, in making said purchase, actually used the money which he received from the plaintiff or his own funds, retaining in his possession the

It is not claimed by the plaintiff—the deceased having received money from her under an agreement to make the purchase of the lots in question, and take the deed to her and himself, and having, without her knowledge and consent, wrongfully taken it in his own name as sole grantee—that a trust resulted in her favor, enforceable in this proceeding, under principles established in Lounsbury v. Purdy, 18 N. Y. 515 ; Roulston v. Roulston, 64 id. 652 ; and kindred cases. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether such a claim, if made, could have been sustained. Counsel for the appellant takes the position that, the defendant’s testator having, as an agent or in a fiduciary capacity, received $600 from Mrs. Baker under a contract to use the same to purchase for her an undivided one-half interest in the lots above mentioned, and having, without her knowledge and consent, wrongfully taken the title thereto in his own name, she, upon the discovery of the facts, was entitled to demand and receive the sum so advanced to him. That such discovery was made shortly before the death of defendant’s testator, and hence that under the provisions of section 410 of the Code of Civil Procedure the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. It is a well-settled principle that, where one advances money to another for a particular object, and the latter appropriates it to a different purpose, the former may recover the money so advanced. McNeilly v. Richardson, 4 Cow. 607 ; Darragh v. Ross, 28 St. Rep. 637 ; Crosby v. Clark, 80 Hun, 426 ; 62 St. Rep. 56 ; Dumond’s Adm’rs v. Carpenter, 3 Johns. 183 . Therefore the appellant, immediately a„fter the 22d day of August, 1867, when the defendant’s testator, in violation of his agreement,! took the deed of the lots in question, was entitled to the money she liad advanced.

The important question is whether, under the circumstances of. the case, a demand for the return of the money was required to be made by the plaintiff of Scripture before she could maintain .an action therefor. If so, the provisions of section 410 of the Code of- Civil Procedure applied. If no demand was necessary, the plaintiff’s claim was barred after the lapse of six years from the. time of the wrongful act of the deceased in taking a deed of the lots to himself alone. We are of the opinion that the defendant’s:

Counsel for the appellant calls our attention to the case of King v. Mackellar, 109 N. Y. 215 ; 14 St. Rep. 838 . The facts appearing in that case were very different from those shown in this. In the,case cited the plaintiff deposited $3,000 with the defendant to invest for her, the deposit being for an indefinite period. The defendant assumed to make an investment which the court of appeals held to be unauthorized, and, in fact, not an investment, tinder this holding the defendant remained in possession of the $3,000 under the original contract by which it was deposited with him for an indefinite period for the purpose of investment. Therefore St was held properly that before the plaintiff could recover the money she must demand "its return. Again, in that case the fdefendani has assumed to take an assignment of a mortgage to

The defendant urges that the referee erred in excluding certain evidence offered by him to show that John P. Baker, agent for the plaintiff, communicated to her the facts as to the contract he had made with Scripture. The evidence so excluded was clearly immaterial. So, also, we think, was the evidence offered to show that the plaintiff had no actual knowledge that the deed of the two lots had been taken to Abel Scripture as sole grantee until after his death. If we are correct in the views above expressed that no demand was necessary for the maintenance of an action by the plaintiff to recover the money in the possession of Scripture after his breach of the contract under which he received it, her claim was barred after the expiration of six years, although she had no actual knowledge of the wrong done by the deceased. It is only when a demand is required that the provisions of section 410 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply. If no demand is necessary, a -party seeking to recover money in the hands of an agent, for which he is entitled to maintain an action, although in ignorance of his title, is not entitled to the benefit of that section. So, in an action to recover a judgment for money on the ground of fraud under the provisions of section 882 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the ignorance of the plaintiff of the fraud perpetrated upon him will not prevent to the running of the statute.

We conclude that the case was correctly disposed of below, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.