Case ID: nys_18/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Seybold v. Bostleman.
    
      (Superior Court of New York City,
    
    
      General Term.
    
    May 2, 1892.)
    Contracts—Recovery of Money Paid at Defendant’s Request.
    In an action to recover money advanced by plaintiff at the request of defendant, and for his benefit, to he handed to defendant’s agent, the fact that plaintiff, instead of paying the money into the hands of the agent, made payments on defendant’s work which the agent had in charge, at the request of the agent, did not affect her right to recover.
    Appeal from jury term.
    Action by Ella M. Seybold against William Bostleman. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before Sedgwick, O. J„ and Me Ad am, J.
    
      I. laflin Kellogg, for appellant. A. G. 17. Vermilya, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The action was for the recovery of an amount of money advanced by the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, for his benefit, to be handed to Bichard Seybold, an agent of the defendant. The only dispute in the case is in regard to several advances, when the plaintiff, it will be assumed, did not draw any check to the order of Bichard Seybold, but did, at his request and under his direction, obtain money on her check, and with that money make disbursements upon the work which Bichard Seybold had in charge. This was the same as if Bichard Seybold first received the money, and then placed it in the hands of a disbursing agent for disbursement. For such a purpose the plaintiff might be a disbursing agent. For Bichard Seybold to have taken it would have been a mere ceremony.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.