The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-17
the RING SUITS.
Text Of the Decision Delivered
by Judge Allen.
The Court Of Appeals in Favor of the
County Civil Suits.
AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.


the case submitted, OF the People OF the State OF
New York VS.. James H. Ingersol, impeaded, &c.
lie will be found that the judgment OF the Court
below is sustained-the majority OF the Court
holding that action did not lie with the plaintifs
(the People OF the State OF New York; but with the
county OF New York;
The history OF this action, or fragment only OF
which Is presented Dy the record before US, mas
been peculiar, and II the practice adopted Is TO
npen into a precedent may be regarded as unfor-
tunate. ordinarily a Judgment deliberately given
upon question directly IN issue mas been, and
should be- regarded as the law Of the particular
case by other judges IN subsequent stages or the
litigation until reversed upon appeal. In no other
way can justice be duly administered the
decisions OF the courts command the respect OF
suitors and the puplic. conflicting decisions by
different Judges resulting III final judgments In
the same action, each carried out TO It's legitimate
results, necessarily leads TO CONFUSION, and In
duged in to any great extent, Will bring reproach
upon the judicial system.
THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION, AND INDEED THE ONLY
OF importance that has as yet been presented to
the courts is to the status OF the plaintiffs and
their right 10 maintain the acton. That was first
presented by the demurrer oil the defendant first
served with process, ana the decision was Tor the
plaintiffs, overrullng the demurrer at Special
Term affirmed at General Term, the three
Justices sustaining their respective views in
well considered and elaborate written opin-
mat defendant who answered over. ana the &C.
ton stands trial upon the issues OF TACT joined
therein Thereafter, upon the motion OF the pres
eut Ge eudant about one-thlrd OF the complaint
by order OF another Judge, stricken out as ar
relevant ana redundant the ALLEGATIONS being
cha med by the defendant, and held oy the Court
essential either TO the right OF The plaintiffs or
.he liability OF the defendants, In respect TO the
cause OF action stated 10 tue complaint thus ex-
pu4 gated and pruned OF what was regarded Dy the
curt below as superfiuous and redundant state
ments, tie present defendant demurred and had
ud-ment ootn at special and General Term, upon
the ground that the plaintiffs had no standing in
court or right to maintain the action In re-
spect to the matters and causes alleged
been given and are now operative, under one OF
winch the plaintiffs having Judgment affirming
put themselves upon the country; from the other
the present appeal mas been taken. The precise
ter stricken out by the Court upon the application
OF the present DEFENDANT was, IN fact, 'irreleyanr
and Redundant in no way affecting the cause OF
action or the status OF the plaintiffs in case OF
recovery by the paintifis-be presented upon an
appeal rom the Judgment upon the issues Of fact
now ready Tor trial. and thus If the practice is toll
Grated, several successive appeals from judg-
ments and decisions, IN different forms,
different partes each presenting but the
one and the same question. 1t is true that
the complaint has only been expurgated OF the
supposed redundant matter as to the present re-
spondent, and as to the other defendants 1T stands
as originally served, and the cause must proceed
against them upon the facts alleged so far as
material to The right OF the plaintiffs to sue, and
upon the theory upon which the action was brought
and the complaint framed by the learned counsel
Tor the plaintiffs and this constitutes another OF
the anomalies OF this case. whether the allegations
and statements stricken out as 10 this respondent
were or were not material. and might or might
not be available to give the plaintiffs q right OF
action. Is not before us upon this appeal,
AND NO OPINION Is, THEREFORE,, EXPRESSED UPON
THE QUESTION.
1t may be that If these allegations should be sus-
tanned by proof, the case would be regarded as 40
essentially different from that presented by
the demurrer before US that the judgment
in the one case would not control in the other
All possibility OIL conflict successive appeals on
the same question would have been ooviated had
the part stricken out been regarded by the Court
rQdn dQnf = nod hann hinln ad a1H sha ia
cision OF the Court first made adopted as the law
OF the case irrespective OF the individual opinions
OF the judges. In its present form
VERY DOUBTFUL QUESTION Is INVOLVED
as to the right OF the plalntins 10 appeal, there
fendant. But in view OF the magnitude OF the
amount and the novelty and Importance OF the
questions involved, and the serious embarrass-
dismissal OF the appeal, incline to forego the
sheraton OF the question of practice and consider
the appeal upon It's merits as If no question
existed as to its regularity. The action
having been severed as TO this defendant
in the and by the proceedings before
referred to, the demurrer OF the defendant and the
present appeal must be considered as If the pres
ent respondent were the sole defendant and the
acton stood against him alone. The appeal In the
action as IL comes before us does not Involve the
right Of the state to maintain an action against
the auditors or any OF the for mafeasance in
ofice, or any person occupying an Official position
and who has been faithless to his trust The
ACTION Is FOR TIE RECOVERY OF A CERTAIN SUN
alleged to have been obtained by the respondent
and tue other persons named IN the complaint his
associates and cOnlederates, by false and iraudu-
lent means and devices ana oy corrupt and
Fraudulent combination and conspiracy. The g1st
o. the action Is the obtaining py the defendant and
Others, and appropriatng to their own use, large
sum OF money, 10 which tDey were not entitled py
the false and fraudulent practices detailed, and
tne demand Is ior Judgment Tor the amount al
eyed to nave been thus obtained with interest IJ
is not in terms averred that the money, in any legal
sense or III equity and good conscience, belonged
TO the plaintiffs, SO that the defendants can be
charged with the same as received TO their USE
that the wrong was perpetrated directly
against the state or the people OF tne State-that
Is the Whole state legal entity and the whole
body OF the people: but tue want oil Such aver
ment IT Is claimed is supplied and the necessity OF
such averment obvlated by allegations as to the
source from which the money came and the au-
thority ana agency by and purposes for which 1t
was procured. The title to and ownership OF the
money sought to be recovered must de-
termine the right OF action, and II the
money did not belong TO the state. but did belong
TO some other BODY having capacity to sue, this
action cannot be alntaned.-(People VS.. Booth,
80 n. " 3s7l Tne eminent senior counsel Ior the
plaintiffs IN his argument in the supreme Court
OF the demurrer OF another defendant, with copies
OF which we have been furnished, IN answer TO a
question put as to 'swho diu own the money as
serted that the state owned 1T, and IN substance
conceded tnat none but the true owner coud nave
an action Tor It's recovery. lie says:-'I believe
have answered the question,
WHO owns THE MONEY!
1t is but another way OF putting the question, who
ought to be maintained by the party VINO Is
10 be regarded as the technical owner or
the money, and the party so regarded in
the law Is the party to maintain the action
have quoted TINS paragraph as expressing &C
curately ana terseiy the precise point upon which
the right OF the plaintiffs 10 sustain the action
hinges, and II ls in strict conformity with People
VS.. Booth supra. IL may not be material whether
tue property in the money was absolute or quail
fed, general or special; but there must be an
ownership OF some kInd to give an action. The
party to maintain an action for a tort or wrong TO
property must be one whose property rights have
been tOrtiously interiered with or lnvaded-one
VINO, as trustee, special property man, ballee or
general owner, has been pecuniartly damaged.
Inc state cannot any more than an individual
nave clvn action Tor the recovery OF money,
Wnetner Oy way OIL damages for fraud or
other wrong, the wrongful conversion OF
chattels or for money received by and in
the possession OF others, except upon proof Of
served between actions BY the people or the
state, In right OF the prerogative, incident to
interest or proprietary right The latter are
governed by the ordinary rules OF law by when
rights are determined between Individuals A
class OF cases referred to ana examined at great
length by counsel do not call Tor an extended con