Case ID: ny_66/html/0651-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per cv/riam\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Syble Card et al., Executors, etc., Respondents, v. Charles F. Duryee, Appellant.
    (Argued June 7, 1876;
    decided June 20, 1876.)
    This was an action to recover moneys received by defendant from Jane Evans, plaintiffs’ testatrix, and alleged to have been fraudulently converted by him.
    The theory of the plaintiffs was, that defendant having in his hands a sum of money to invest for said Jane Evans, to secure a claim of his own, loaned the money upon a mortgage substantially worthless, which he palmed off upon Mrs. Evans. The jury rendered their verdict in the following words: <£ We hold the defendant responsible for the full amount claimed, viz., $2,834.40.” It was objected on appeal that the verdict was not for fraud, but in form for a money demand. No objection was made on the trial to the form of the verdict 
      Held) that it must he assumed that the jury found the defendant responsible upon the law as laid down by the court, to wit, on account of the alleged fraud.
    Defendant offered to prove by himself that he informed Mrs. Evans that her money was to be invested in the manner it was. Held, that the evidence was properly excluded under section 399 of the Code.
    
      W. Grigg for the appellant.
    
      Ha/niel T. Walden and James W. Monk for the respondent?.
   Per cv/riam

opinion for affirmance of order, and for judgment absolute against defendant on verdict.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.