
    HALLIDAY, Respondent, v. NICHOLS et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    June 20, 1894.)
    Appeal from trial term. Action by William Halliday against Harry I. Nichols and others. Baldwin & Boston, for appellants. William M. Safford, for respondent
   NEWBURGER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants, •entered on a verdict of a jury, and also from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The complaint alleges that the defendants had converted to their own use the sum of $693.50. The answer of the defendants denied the deposit of the moneys with the defendants, except with the defendant H. I. Nichols; and, further, that the deposit consisted of a check of no particular value. The demand and refusal to deliver to plaintiff the money were not denied. The answer further alleged that one O’Con-nor deposited with the defendant H. I. Nichols a certain check of said O’Connor, and requested and authorized the said H. I. Nichols to deliver the same to the plaintiff in case and only upon condition of the consolidation of certain western railroads, and on the further condition that certain bonds were issued by the consolidated companies, and in case of said conditions, or either of them, failing of fulfillment on or before the 15th day of July, 1893, then the said check was to be returned to said O’Connor; that the consolidations were not effected on or before the said 15th day of July, 1893, and the said bonds were not issued on or before the said 15th day of July, 18J3. On the trial, plaintiff offered in evidence certain exhibits, in which the defendants acknowledged the receipt of the sum of $693.50, to be held by them until the 15th day of July, 1893, and which moneys were paid to plaintiff, conditioned upon the consolidation and issue of bonds in accordance with the terms of proxy. The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff complied with .all the conditions so far as he was required to do. It is claimed, however, by defendants, that the consolidation and issue of bonds did not take place on or before the 15th day of July, and therefore one of the conditions under which the money was held by defendants was not complied with. The deposition of the general counsel for the railroads, offered and read in evidence, shows that the consolidated road, by the proper meeting of its stockholders, on the 13th day of July, authorized the consolidation of the roads and the issuance of the bonds. The evidence clearly shows that the defendants received the moneys, and that the plaintiff was entitled to receive the same. A careful examination of the case fails to disclose any errors on the trial that would warrant us in disturbing the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs.  