King v. . MacKellar
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 17, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered on a verdict. The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. Conversion is a hostile interference with the owner’s control. (McMorris v. Simpson, 21 Wend. 610; 2 Greenl.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 17, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered on a verdict. The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. Conversion is a hostile interference with the owner’s control. (McMorris v. Simpson, 21 Wend. 610; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 642; Salt Spring Bank v. Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 492; Laverty v. Snethen, 68 id. 522; Freeman v. Venner, 120 Mass. 424.) Negligent performance of duty is not conversion, and can only be redressed in an…
1Opinion of the CourtRapallo, J.
The cause of action set forth in the complaint is, that the plaintiff intrusted to the defendant, at his request, the sum of $3,000, upon his promise duly to invest the same for the plaintiff on bond and mortgage upon real estate in the city of Few York, but that the defendant converted the money to his own use, and refused to repay the same to the plaintiff on demand made by her. This is the only cause of action alleged.
If the defendant did actually and in good faith invest the money in the manner promised, proof that he took an insufficient security, or even that he was negligent in his…
2Cited by1 opinion
- King v. . MacKellarNew York Court of Appeals · 1888