
    Felix A. Duffy, App’lt, v. James H. Work et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed July 2, 1891.)
    
    Conversion—Estoppel.
    W. loaned money held in trust by him to W. &Go., D.’s employers, and induced the latter to execute in blank a deed of his property, promising him that it should not be recorded, but that he simply wanted to hold it to show to his co-trustees and beneficiaries for the money loaned. W. afterwards inserted the name of a grantee by whom the property was conveyed for value to S. In an action by D. for conversion, it appeared that at W.'s request, before the conveyance to S., he had endeavored to find a purchaser, and that he afterwards accepted §1,000 to give possession of the deed to S. Held, that he was estopped from claiming that the sale to S. was a conversion.
    Appeal from special term.
    
      Redfield & Redfield, for app’lt; A. L. Pincoffs, for resp’ts.
   Dugro, J.

—The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint, entered upon the findings and decision of a judge at special term. At the trial both parties gave evidence. A careful examination of the papers presented, fails to disclose any ground which calls for a reversal of the judgment The burden of establishing his cause of action by a fair preponderance of evidence, was not satisfactorily borne by the plaintiff at the trial.

If the second conveyance is considered to have been given as security, and so a mortgage, it would not help the plaintiff’s case, as by his conduct he has estopped himself from claiming that the sale to Sexton was a conversion, for he took service to find a pur- ' chaser, and, when unsuccessful in his efforts, accepted $1,000 to give possession to a purchaser.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, P. J., and Gtldersleeve, J., concur.  