
    (86 Hun, 546.)
    LAWATSCH v. COONEY.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
    May 14, 1895.)
    1. Trover and Conversion—What Constitutes Conversion.
    Where the owners of a draft payable to them jointly had agreed as to their respective interests therein, and placed it in the hands of a third person, duly indorsed, to be collected and divided between them, and one of them afterwards obtains possession of the draft from such third person, and obtains the money thereon, he is guilty of conversion.
    2. Same—When Lies—Conversion of Bill of Exchange.
    An action in the nature of trover may be maintained for the conversion of a bill of exchange.
    8. Abatement of Action—Another Action Pending.
    An action for the conversion of a draft in which plaintiff and defendant are jointly interested will not be abated by the pendency of an equitable action to enforce specific performance of an agreement as to the division of the proceeds of such draft.
    Appeal from circuit court, Ulster county.
    Action by Anthony H. Lawatsch against John J. Cooney for alleged wrongful conversion of a draft for the sum of $1,000, payable to the order of plaintiff, defendant, and another. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made on the minutes, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The complaint, verified January 9, 1889, was as follows:
    “(1) That he was and is the owner of certain premises situate on the southerly side of Union avenue, in the city of Kingston, N. Y., which he improved, and on which he erected a mill and machinery; and on or about the 18th day of February, 1888, Henry W. Palen filed in the Ulster county clerk’s office a notice of lien thereon for lumber and materials furnished therefor, to the amount of $131.06, and duly perfected the same.
    “(2) That afterwards the New York Bowery Fire Insurance Company insured the buildings, grain, etc., on said premises, to the amount of $1,000.
    “(3) That afterwards said buildings, grain, etc., were destroyed by fire, and the said insurance company, to pay said loss, issued its draft for $1,000, payable to the order of this plaintiff, John J. Cooney, and Margaret Cooney, his wife; that the plaintiff’s property and interest in said draft, and the money called for by the same, amounted to about the sum of $344, and the plaintiff refused to indorse said draft to the defendant until he was seemed for his property and interest therein; that thereupon the defendant agreed that William D. Brinnier should be the trustee and medium between them, and should hold and have the custody of said draft until after the defendant had paid, satisfied, and discharged said lien of Henry W. Palen, and had delivered to the said Brinnier or this plaintiff the proper voucher or certificate showing that the same had been done, and until after two hundred dollars had been deposited in the hands of said Brinnier by the defendant for the use and benefit of this plaintiff, to be applied on two certain notes made by the plaintiff and indorsed by the defendant, and until after a satisfaction piece of the mortgage held by the defendant’s wife on said premises had been delivered to said Brinnier; and thereby, on or about January 2, 1889, induced this plaintiff to indorse said draft, and said Brinnier took the said draft into his custody, pursuant to said understanding and agreement, and the next morning the defendant, under pretense of wanting to see the amount of said draft, snatched it from the custody and possession of SUid Brinnier, and took and negotiated and sold and collected the same, and converted the rights, interests, and property of the plaintiff therein, and in the moneys called for by the same, to his own use; to the plaintiff’s damage $344, for which amount, with interest and costs, the plaintiff demands judgment.”
    Defendant pleaded, among other things, that another action was pending “between the same parties as this action, and for the same cause as that set forth in the complaint.” In support of such defense he offered both complaints in evidence. The complaint in the action pleaded in abatement, also verified on January 9, 1889, was identical with the complaint in this action, down to and including the words “to his own use,” in the last line but one thereof, as above set forth, and then it continued as follows:
    “Without satisfying said lien, or producing any vouchers or certificate showing that the same had been done, and without placing in the hands of said Brinnier the said $200, and without satisfying the said mortgage of his wife, which had been paid, and without doing any of the acts and things which he' had stipulated and agreed to do. Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment that the defendant specifically perform his said agreement in regard to the satisfaction of the mortgage of his said wife, and in regard to said lien, and that he pay, satisfy, and discharge the same, and produce to said Brinnier, or to this plaintiff, certified copies of said satisfactions and discharges, and receipts of the application of said moneys as per agreement, and for such further or other relief as shall be just and equitable, With costs.”
    Argued before PUTNAM; HERRICK, and STOVER, JJ.
    George Van Etten (John J. Linson, of counsel), for appellant.
    J. E. & L. E. Van Etten (John E. Van Etten, of counsel), for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The evidence was such that the jury could properly find that plaintiff was part owner of the draft described in the complaint. The parties had agreed upon the amount of his interest therein, and that the draft should be delivered to Brinnier, to collect and divide the proceeds; and on the faith of that agreement plaintiff had indorsed the draft. Afterwards the defendant wrongfully obtained possession of the paper with plaintiff’s indorsement thereon, claimed to be the sole owner, and denied that plaintiff had any' interest therein. We think defendant’s action was such a wrongful appropriation of the draft in violation of the contract of the parties as to constitute a conversion. Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 547; Osborn v. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201. Probably the agreement and the delivery of the draft to Brinnier operated as a separation of the tenancy in common therein. Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70; Channon. v. Lusk, 2 Lans. 211. An action in the nature of a trover can be maintained as well for. the conversion of a bill of exchange or a note as any other kind of property. Murray v. Burling, 10 Johns. 172; Develin v. Coleman, 50 N. Y. 531; Decker v. Matthews, 12 N. Y. 313. We do not regard the pendency of the other action, commenced at the same time as this, as a defense. That action is an equitable one, brought for a specific performance of the contract between the parties. This action is for a wrongful conversion by the defendant of the draft subsequent to the contract. Paige v. Wilson, 8 Bosw. 294; Webb v. Van Zandt, 16 Abb. Pr. 190. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.  