
    William Halliday, Resp’t, v. Harry I. Nichols et al., App’lts.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed June 20, 1894)
    Conversion—Demand and refusal.
    Where money is deposited with defendant to be delivered to plaintiff on a certain condition, conversion will lie upon a compliance with such condition, after a demand and refusal.
    
      Baldwin & Boston, for app’lts; William M. Safford, for resp’t.
   Newburger, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, 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 money 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 was not denied. The answer further alleges that one O’Connor deposited with the defendant H. I. Nichols a certified 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 óf July, 1893, then the said check was to be returned to said O’Connor. That the consolidation 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, 1893.

On the trqil, plaintiff offered in evidence certain exhibits in which the defendants acknowledged the receipt of the sum of six hundred and ninety-three and 50-100 dollars ($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 roads 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.

Fitzsimons and Coman, JJ., concur.  