Case ID: ind_19/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hanna, J.\n     \n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robbins v. Dishon.
    In an action by the payee, in bis own name, upon a note made payable to bim as trustee, etc., tbe words trustee, etc., will be regarded as mere description of tbe person, and an answer denying bis title to, or right to recover upon, said note, should show that he has ceased to be such trustee, etc.
    Where a township trustee lends money belonging to the township, in such manner as to make the loan thereof a conversion of the money to his own use, and takes a note payable to himself, as trustee, etc., he would be liable, on his bond, for said money, but the township would have no right of action on such note.
    An answer to a complaint on a note, setting up an alleged former recovery for the amount of said note, in another action, should be accompanied by a copy of the proceedings and judgment in said action.
    APPEAL from the Orange Common Pleas.
   Hanna, J.

Dishon sued. Robbins on a note made to tbe former, by the name of uJohn Dishon, trustee of French Lick township.” The action is in the usual form between individuals.

The defendant answered: 1. That the money sued for belonged to French Lick township, and .not to Dishon, and, therefore, he was not the proper party. 2. That a judgment had been recovered in, etc., in which said sum sued for was included, against said plaintiff, said defendant, and one Bush, and in favor of one McCracken, trustee of French Lick township, which remains unreversed and unsatisfied. 8. Similar to the first, but avers that the note was taken for money of the township loaned, and that Dishon is no longer trustee, etc.

A demurrer was sustained to said answers, which raises the only question in the case. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Regarding the words “ trustee, etc.,” as a mere description of the person, the first and third paragraphs of the answer are insufficient, because the first does not show but that Dishon was still trustee; and the third shows that he had converted the money of the township to his own use, and,by the act of loaning it, had made himself responsible, on his bond. The township could have no right of action on such note, whatever right, if any, might exist, in any contingency, to pursue the money itself. As to the second paragraph, there is no copy of said judgment, etc., filed with the same, and it is, therefore, bad.

A. J. Simpson, for the appellant.

Thomas L. Smith, M. C. Kerr, and M. S. Mavity, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with two per cent, damages and costs.