
    HUNTZINGER vs. NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.
    Where a director of an insurance company has received money from the company, for the conveyance of land, which it was not authorized to take, the money may be recovered back.
    Error to Court of Common Pleas No 1, of Philadelphia County. No. 31 January Term 1877.
    The suit was brought to recover from the defendant the sum of $3,000, with interest from November 23, 1873, the said sum of money having been received from them by the defendant (who was then a director of the company plaintiffs), upon the day named, upon a check signed by two members of the Finance Committee of the company, plaintiffs averring that for the said sum of money the defendent had given no consideration. The evidence for plaintiffs showed that the consideration was to have been the conveyance to the company of an interest, by deed or mortgage, in lands in Schuylkill County, the title to which was controlled by defendant, but the contention on his behalf being that it was not in him, and that he acted as the agent of the vendors, and not as principal, in making the sale to the company. The treasurer testified that he thought the defendant. was not grantor in the deed tendered. Upon the day of the date of the check, November 23, 1873, a messenger from defendant brought to the office of the plaintiffs, “a conveyance, a mortgage and bonds accompanying,” which he tendered to their treasurer, who thereupon gave to the messenger the check in suit, but declined to receive the papers, on the ground that they were not accompanied with the opinion of a certain solicitor, for which, however, the said treasurer testified that he had not previously stipulated. The solicitor’s opinion was not furnished by defendant, and the plaintiff’s brought suit to recover the amount of the check. The case was tried upon March 17, 1876, when, in the absence of defendant, his witnesses and papers, the jury, under binding instructions of the court, rendered a verdict for plaintiffs, for the whole claim, with interest.
    The following is the charge of the Court :
    Gentlemen oí the jury: — This is an action brought to recover $3,000, which, it is alleged, this insurance company paid Mr. Huntzinger, under the circumstances which have been detailed to you by the witness. I am prepared to instruct you, gentlemen, that, under all the evidence in the case, your verdict should be for the plaintiff for this sum of money, with the interest. The relation which Mr. Huntzinger sustained to this company was that of a director of the company, with full, knowledge of (or he was bound to know) the power of the persons with whom he was dealing, and who knew exactly what he was doing. He was not a stranger. He was not dealing at arm’s length, but bound to protect this company, as a director of the company, and bound to know that the parties with whom he was dealing had authority to deal with him, occupying this position. The evidence simply shows that, conferring with some of the officers of the company, with two members of the Finance Committee, and with that knowledge, he, in some way or other, got this check from them. Therefore, I instruct you, gentlemen, under the evidence in this case, (and it is not contradicted), that your verdict should be for the plaintiffs, for the amount of this claim, with its interest.
    The tract was known as the Kline, Huntzinger and Gumpert tract in Foster township, Sceuylkill county, also known as the Eliza Young tract.
    March 17 1876 verdict for plaintiff for $3,410.
    During the trial, counsel for plaintiff' offered copy of charter and supplement in the pamphlet laws, which were admitted under objection. The minute book of the company and the record of the conviction of Whildin D. Halfman, formerly secretary of the company, were also admitted under objection.
    The specifications of error were to the admission of the testimony aforesaid and to the chaage of the Court.
    
      George M. Dallas, Esq., for plaintiff in error argued:
    that there no evidence of bad faith by Huntzinger; or that the title to the land was not good. That Huntzinger could, as a director, sell the land to the company; being bound only to the highest good faith; Gordon vs. Preston 1, Watts 387; Ashhurst’s appeal, 10 P. F. S. 290, 314.
    It is not the province of the Court, but of the jury, to decide all inferences and presumptions from facts proved; Moore vs. Miller, 8 Barr, 282; Rindge vs. Inhabitants of Coleraine, 11 Gray, 138; Railroad Company vs. Stout, 17 Wallace, 663.
    Where there is some evidence; it is for the jury; Repsher vs. Watson, 17 Penn., 365; Thomas vs. Thomas, 21 Penna. 318.
    
      Messrs. Sharp and Alleman, contra;
    Pi’ivate acts of assembly may be proved by offering in evidence the pamphlet laws; Biddis vs. James, 6 Binney, 321, Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. 1, Sect. 480.
    The record of conviction of Halfman was offered to explain his absence and enable secondary proof of the minutes being put in.
    The minutes show a total absence 'of authority for the purchase of this land.
    The charter of the company. P. Laws of 1872, page 1223, does not give the insurance company the right to purchase land as an investment.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Court below on February 19, 1887, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

There is no evidence of a valid sale to the corporation by the defendant below, nor that the check of $3,000 was obtained by him with the authority of the corporation. As regards the corporation, the whole transaction was without authority and invalid. He, therefore, had the sum obtained by means of the check without right, and was bound ex aequo et bono to return it.

Judgment affirmed.  