
    CITIZENS’ CENTRAL NAT. BANK OF NEW YORK v. MUNN et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    November 23, 1906.)
    Money Lent—Pleading—Definiteness and Certainty.
    A complaint in an action to recover money loaned, alleging that defendant borrowed the money from plaintiff through another, is not subject to motion to make more certain by stating the nature and extent of defendant’s interest or liability in the alleged loan, the capacity or relation in which the person through whom the money was borrowed represented or was authorized to represent defendant with respect to the loan, whether plaintiff received any note or other writing evidencing the loan at the time of the making thereof, and the grounds on which defendant is sought to be charged with liability upon such instrument.
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by the Citizens’ Central National Bank of New York against John P. Munn and another. Prom an order (99 N. Y. Supp. 191) requiring plaintiff to make its complaint more definite and certain, it appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before McLAUGHLIN, INGRAHAM, HOUGHTON, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
    
      John A. Garver, for appellant.
    Gibson Putzel, for respondent.
   INGRAHAM, J.

The action was brought to recover the sum of $100,000. The complaint alleges that:

“On or about November 27, 1901, the defendants jointly purchased three hundred shares of the capital stock of the Merchants’ Trust Company of New York, and, for the purpose of paying for the same, they borrowed, on that date, from the Central National Bank of the City of New York, through the defendant Fisher, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), which it was agreed should be repaid upon demand, with interest from the same date; and the said sum, so borrowed, was applied by the defendants in payment of the purchase price of the said stock.”

Upon motion of the defendant Munn the court below has required the plaintiff to make the complaint more definite and certain:

First. “By stating the nature and extent of the interest or liability which the plaintiff claims the defendant had or was liable for in the alleged loan.” The complaint alleges that the defendant borrowed the money. There is nothing indefinite or uncertain in this allegation. The extent of the interest that the defendant had in the loan is immaterial, if the defendant borrowed the money. It is only when the allegation is so indefinite or uncertain that the precise meaning or application thereof is not apparent that the court is authorized to require the pleading to be made definite and certain by amendment. Code Civ. Proc. § 546.

Second. “By stating in what capacity or relation the plaintiff claims that the defendant Fisher represented, or was authorized to represent, act for, or bind the defendant Munn with respect to the alleged loan, whether as agent, partner, joint venture, or otherwise, and how this relationship or power was evidenced or authorized, whether by writing or paroi, and, if by paroi, the person or persons who purported to give the same on behalf of the defendant Munn, a'nd the person or persons representing the Citizens’ Central National Bank, to whom and the time and place where the same was communicated.” However important this information may be for the defendant Munn, it is quite difficult to see upon what principle it can be inserted in the complaint. The complaint should not state the evidence by which the plaintiff will seek to prove its cause of action. To prove the cause of action alleged there must be evidence that Fisher was authorized to borrow the money for the defendant Munn; but the proof the plaintiff has to sustain this allegation should not be inserted in the complaint.

Third. “By stating whether the Citizens’ Central National Bank accepted and received any promissory note or other writing from said defendants, or either of them, or any other person, at the time of making the alleged loan, and, if so, the parties, indorsers, terms, and substance thereof, and the manner or grounds on which it is sought to charge the defendant Munn with liability upon the loan evidenced by such instrument, and whether jointly or severally, or jointly and severally.” This would be improper, if pleaded. The complaint alleges that these defendants borrowed the money. The only allegation necessary to sustain a cause of action for the repayment of a loan is that defendants borrowed the money. This the complaint alleges, and it is not, therefore, indefinite or uncertain.

It follows that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.  