Flagg v. Ely
New York Circuit Court
AssuMPsrr for money had and received. The plaintiff having lost her husband in the West Indies, returned to the United States in 1837 with $3,000 in cash and a claim of $2,500 against the firm of David Rogers & Son, both of which she put into the defendant’s hands, for the purpose of having the same invested on bond and mortgage for her in the city of New York, and she took from the defendant a receipt specifying the object of the deposit as above mentioned.
Read the full summary
AssuMPsrr for money had and received. The plaintiff having lost her husband in the West Indies, returned to the United States in 1837 with $3,000 in cash and a claim of $2,500 against the firm of David Rogers & Son, both of which she put into the defendant’s hands, for the purpose of having the same invested on bond and mortgage for her in the city of New York, and she took from the defendant a receipt specifying the object of the deposit as above mentioned. It appeared upon the trial that the defendant had collected about $1,000 on the claim against R. & Son, but he had not invested any of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Circuit Judge charged the jury, that there being no dispute about the receipt of the money by the defendant, or about the terms and conditions on which it had been received, the only question was whether the debt was of such a character as to be within the bankrupt law. If it was not it would be unnecessary to consider the other point of fraud in obtaining the discharge, and the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict, notwithstanding the discharge.
It was very evident that this was a trust debt—the defendant had received the fund in dispute, solely for the purpose of investing it on bond…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Thompson v. VroomanNew York Supreme Court · 1892