
    Herbert Richmond, Resp’t, v. Arnold C. Saportas, App’lt.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed April 5, 1892.)
    
    Conversion—Refusal to fay over money received for another’s use.
    The complaint alleged that defendant received a check representing plaintiff’s share in certain moneys, deposited the same to his own account, and refused to pay the same to plaintiff unless the latter would pay him the amount of a note due. Held, a plain case of conversion.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict directed by the court
    
      Sullivan & Cromwell, for app’lt; Henry C. Andrews, for resp’t.
   Fitzimons, J.

This This is an action for conversion of a check amounting to seven hundred and nineteen and 64-100 dollars ($719.64) After the testimony of both sides was heard the trial justice directed a verdict for plaintiff.

The testimony even of the defendant shows that plaintiff and defendant and one Wood were entitled to share equally in certain monies paid as commissions by the Pennsylvania Steel Company; that such commissions were received by Wood always from said company.

Wood retained one-third; another two-thirds were divided between plaintiff and defendant.

In this instance the sum of two thousand and one hundred and fifty-eight and 92-100 dollars, ($2,158.92), was due to plaintiff and defendant and Wood for commission.

Wood received the same in three checks,- each one being for seven hundred and nineteen .and 64-100 dollars ($719.64), and drawn to his order; he kept one.

The second he endorsed over to defendant.

The third he endorsed to plaintiff and defendant severally, and delivered these last two checks to defendant, who struck out, personally or through another, the endorsement on the check to plaintiff, deposited both checks in his bank and received the full amount thereof, one thousand four hundred and thirty-nine and 28-100 dollars, ($1,439.28) and then refused to pay plaintiff his share, seven hundred and nineteen and 64-100 dollars ($719.64), unléss plaintiff would pay him (defendant) the amount of a note due, and for that reason only refused to pay plaintiff the check due him.

The complaint stated a conversion of the check in question. The answer was a general denial. No counterclaim or set-off was pleaded. This is a very plain case, of conversion.

Under the testimony nothing was left for the trial justice to do except to direct a verdict as he did for plaintiff. No error was committed. Judgment must be affirmed.

Ehrlich, Ch., J. and McCarthy, J., concur.  