Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McDonald", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anna Krecun, Appellee, v. Samuel J. Rosenthal, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,334.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Assumpsit, Action of, § 89*—when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict for plaintiff in action to recover money. In an action to recover money, where plaintiff claimed that the amount in question had been deposited with the defendant for safe keeping while her husband was going through bankruptcy, and the defendant claimed that it was paid to him. in payment of a debt owing to him from plaintiff’s husband, evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.
    2. Assumpsit, Action of, § 44
      
      —when ownership of money is immaterial. In an action for money had and received, the question of the ownership of the money is immaterial, as such question can he raised only by the equitable owner.
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 1, 1917.
    Rehearing denied May 14, 1917.
    
      Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Anna Krecun, plaintiff, against Samuél J. Rosenthal, defendant, for money had and received. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Alexander Woloshen and Zoline & Levinson, for appellant; Morris K. Levinson, of counsel.
    William Reeda and Levin & Krinsky, for appellee; Harry H. Krinsky, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, tame topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.