
    Thomas F. Mulligan et al., Respondents, v. Edward M. Harlam, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    March, 1905.)
    Money had and received — Action to recover money obtained by fraud of third person — Demand evidence of good faith.
    Where defendant received plaintiff’s money without consideration in consequence of the fraud of a third person, the plaintiff is entitled to its immediate return, and it is no defense that defendant cannot be restored to his original position.
    In an action for money had and received, to recover the amount, after demand upon defendant therefor, evidence as to his good faith is inadmissible.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiffs.
    W. C. Findlay, for appellant.
    B. F. Edsall (Isaac L. Miller, of counsel), for respondents.
   O’Gorman, J.

Action to recover $1,200, the amount of a check made by plaintiffs to the defendant at the instance of one Kelly, who secured the check on the delivery to the plaintiffs of a note made by Kelly for that amount, and bearing the forged indorsement of the defendant. At the solicitation of Kelly, the defendant indorsed the check, passed it through his bank and it was paid by the plaintiffs’ bank in due course. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the sole question presented is whether the trial justice erred in excluding evidence tendered by the defendant as to Kelly’s conversation with him at the time of the presentation of the check, and as to the defendant’s subsequent delivery of the $1,200 to Kelly. The case under the proof is simply a case of money had and received. The defendant received plaintiffs’ money without consideration and in- consequence of the fraud of a third person. The plaintiffs had a right.to its immediate return. It is no defense that the defendant cannot be restored to his original position. Kingston Bank v. Eltinge, 40 N. Y. 399. Evidence of defendant’s good faith would be admissible only if suit were brought without previous demand. Sharkey v. Mansfield, 90 N. Y. 227. As a demand was made, that question did not arise and defendant’s exception to the exclusion of this evidence is unavailing.

Scott and Blanchard, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  