Case Name: John H. Starin, Respondent, v. Nathan C. Fonda, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-09
Citations: 107 A.D. 539
Docket Number: 
Parties: John H. Starin, Respondent, v. Nathan C. Fonda, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 539–543

Head Matter:
John H. Starin, Respondent, v. Nathan C. Fonda, Appellant.
Complaint for money received of the plaintiff by the defendant “ as his agent ” —. when it alleges a cause of action on contract.
The complaint in an action alleged that the defendant received of the plaintiff “as his agent” divers sums of money amounting to the sum of §9,332.96 for the “use of the plaintiff;” that the plaintiff demanded payment thereof from the defendant and that the latter had not paid any part thereof and " that there is row due, owing and unpaid” from the defendant to the plaintiff, by reason thereof, said sum of §9,232.96, for which amount the plaintiff demanded judgment.
The complaint contained no allegation that the plaintiff had been damaged by reason of the facts stated, or that the moneys had been converted by the defendant to his own use or misapplied, or that they were wrongfully or unlawfully withheld from the plaintiff. The plaintiff disclaimed any intention to sue in tort.
Held, that the complaint was clearly one for money had and received, and that it operated as a waiver by the plaintiff of his right to sue the defendant for any tort that might have been incident to the latter’s receipt of the moneys in his capacity as agent.
Smith, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, Nathan 0. Fonda, from an order of •the Supreme Court, made at the Fulton Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Montgomery oh the 11th day of May, 1905, referring the issues in the action to a referee to hear and determine.
Leonard F. Fish and Wertheimer & Duffy, for the appellant.
George M. Albot, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Chester, J.:
We construe the complaint herein to be one upon a contract and ' not for a tort-. In it it is alleged that the defendant received of the plaintiff as his agent " divers sums of money amounting to the sum of $9,232.96 for the " use of the plaintiff." It is also alleged that plaintiff demanded payment thereof from the defendant and that he has not paid any part thereof, and " that there is now due, owing and unpaid " from the defendant to the plaintiff by reason thereof said sum of $9,232.96, and judgment is demanded against the defendant for that sum, with interest besides costs.
There is no allegation that the moneys were received by the ' defendant in a fiduciary capacity, except as that may be inferred from the allegation that they were received of the plaintiff " as his agent." Nor is there any - allegation that -the plaintiff has been damaged by reason of the facts stated, .or that the moneys have been converted by the defendant to his own use, or misapplied, or that they are wrongfully or unlawfully withheld from the plaintiff. The allegation that " there is now due, owing and unpaid " to the plaintiff the amount alleged to have been received by the defendant is a recognition on the^part of the plaintiff that the amount sued for arises out of a contract obligation between the parties, or because' of an existing indebtedness which remains due. The complaint is clearly one for moneys had and received. The prayer for relief is for a specific amount of money and not for damages. A complaint so drawn amounts to a waiver by the plaintiff of his . right to sue the agent for any tort that there may have been incident to the latter's receiving the moneys in such a capacity. ' '(Kaminski v. Schefer, 46 App. Div. 170, 173:)
It appearing from this complaint that the pleader intended to state a cause of action upon Contract, the court should not be zealous to construe it as one for tort. Indeed, the plaintiff's counsel con ceded upon the argument and in his brief in support of the order appealed from that the complaint was upon a contract for money had and received and disclaimed that there was any intention to frame a complaint for tort.
As the trial of the action will involve the examination of a long account on the side of the plaintiff, consisting of several hundred items, and the complaint being upon contract, the action was properly referred.
We think, however, that the order should be modified by permit ting the referee to sit in New York county as well as in Montgomery county in accordance with the consent of respondent's counsel to that effect on the argument.
The order should be modified as aforesaid and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concurred, except Smith, J., dissenting in opinion.