Case Name: AGNES L. PRICE, Respondent, v. SAMUEL L. MULFORD, Appellant, Impleaded with PETER S. WANDELL
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-05
Citations: 43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 247
Docket Number: 
Parties: AGNES L. PRICE, Respondent, v. SAMUEL L. MULFORD, Appellant, Impleaded with PETER S. WANDELL.
Judges: Dykman, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 43
Pages: 247–252

Head Matter:
AGNES L. PRICE, Respondent, v. SAMUEL L. MULFORD, Appellant, Impleaded with PETER S. WANDELL.
Trustifunds — the statute of limitations does not begin to run until notice of the repudiation of the trust is given — the members of a firm are liable for trust funds used for its purposes by one partner.
January 1, 1863, the firm of Mulford & Wandell held a certificate of indebtedness, signed by one Barry, for $1,350. At that time the firm was indebted to Wandell in the sum of $1,400. Wandell, who was then county treasurer, took the certificate of indebtedness, had himself charged with it on the books of the firm in satisfaction of his debt, and made ah entry on the books of the county treasurer to the effect that he had invested $1,350 of a trust fund, held under an order of the court, in the said certificate.
In 1868 Wandell transferred the said certificate to his successor as a part of the said trust fund. In June, '1883 the beneficiary of the trust fund, to whom the certificate had been transferred under an order of the court, first became aware of what had been done, and brought this action against the two members of the firm to recover the sum so abstracted.
Held, that the right of action was not barred by the statute of limitations.
That the plaintiff was entitled to recover. (Pratt, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon tbe verdict of a jury and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.
It appeared upon the trial that the defendants Samuel L. Mulford and Peter S. Wandell -were copartners, doing business at Stapleton, Richmond county, under the firm name of Mulford & Wandell, from 1862 to 1869. They were engaged in the sale of lumber and coal. The defendant Peter S. Wandell was, during a considerable part of the period of their copartnership, the county treasurer of that county. Dennis Keeley, payee in the certificate hereinafter referred to, was a customer and debtor of the firm. He received the certificate from the maker thereof for work done by him and being then indebted to the defendants’ firm, he, on or about the 1st day of December, 1865, indorsed and delivered this certificate to the firm as payment of a portion of such indebtedness and received credit therefor upon the books of the firm. • While this firm held it they received interest upon the amount named therein for two years. In 1863 Wandell took this certificate, charged it to himself upon the books of the firm, in satisfaction of a debt due from it to him, and invested a trust fund held by him as county treasurer in the purchase of it. This certificate was indorsed by the defendants in their firm name, per P. S. Wandell, then county treasurer, to E. P. Barton, county treasurer, the successor in office of Wandell, as of the date of January 1, 1868, and the sum of $1,397.25 (equivalent to the face of the certificate and accrued interest) was charged by Wandell to the “ court funds ” in the suit, of Conover v. Van Dyfce, and is so entered upon the “ ledger ” of the “ court funds ” in that county, and it was so entered upon said ledger prior to the time when the “funds” and “ledger” were turned over to Mr. Barton, the successor in office of Wandell.
fey an order of this court, dated the ,18th day of June, 1883, the county treasurer of Richmond county, upon application made, was directed to pay the surplus moneys in Conover v. Van Dyhe to the plaintiff and her assignors as the heirs-at-law of one Nicholas Yan Dyke Price, deceased, and with such surplus moneys was this certificate.
This action was then began by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants the sum of $1,397.25, being the amount abstracted from the court funds as aforesaid.
William M. Mullen., for the appellant.
Edward B. Merrill and Henry D. Hotchkiss, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.:
Wandell, one of the firm of Mulford .& "Wandell, received the money as county treasurer. This was a trust fund, as to which there is no statute of limitations unless notice of hostility to the trust is given. Somehow the beneficiary must be made aware that the trustee repudiates the trust and claims to hold in opposition to it. The case shows no such repudiation. IVandell is liable. Can he, by transfer to his firm, change the relation of the parties? •Surely not. The transfer was made with the full knowledge that the fund acquired by the partnership was a private trust fund in ¡the county treasurer's hands. The partnership became, in law, trustees, and the beneficiaries neither knew of the transfer, or that their money was being held in opposition to them. A county treasurer could change the title to all the trust funds to himself indirectly if this rule prevailed. The action is not barred, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J., concurred.