Case Name: HEARN et al. v. SCHUCHMAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-03
Citations: 135 N.Y.S. 52
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEARN et al. v. SCHUCHMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 135
Pages: 52–56

Head Matter:
HEARN et al. v. SCHUCHMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 3, 1912.)
1. Money Received (§ 19*)—Damages from Unlawful Contract—Bribery.
Where a repair company unlawfully agrees with employes of the owners of vehicles to pay the employés a certain per cent, of all business which they bring, and where it is a part of the agreement that unnecessary material and work shall be ordered at an extravagant price, and where this agreement is carried out to the damage of such owners, they cannot, because of the unlawful contract, recover from the repair company the entire amount paid by them for repairs, but only the difference between what they paid, and what they should have paid.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Money Received, Cent. Dig. §§ 73-80; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]
2. Pleading (§ 193*)—Demurrer.
A complaint which stated a cause of action for money had and received was not demurrable because the plainti^ prayed judgment for more than he was entitled to.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 425, 428-435, 437-443; Dec. Dig. § 193.*]
v Ingraham, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissenting.
«For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by George A. Hearn and others against George Schuchman. From an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P, J., and McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and DOW1LING, JJ.
Lawrence B. Cohen, of New York City, for appellant.
H. Snowden Marshall, of New York City, for respondents.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The plaintiffs are merchants having occasion to
use in their business delivery wagons andi automobiles. The defendant is and has been between the dates mentioned in the complaint a builder and repairer of such vehicles. Between June 4, 1907, and February 28, 1911, plaintiffs had in their employ George Reinemann and Frank Kelsey, who were authorized to purchase and contract for plaintiffs and to employ service and labor for them. It is alleged that between the dates aforesaid a corrupt, illegal, and criminal agreement was made, without plaintiffs' knowledge, between said Reinemann and Kelsey on the one hand and defendant on the other, wherein and whereby the said defendant offered and agreed to give to said! Reinemann and Kelsey, for themselves, a commission, discount, and bonus upon the price and amount paid for all materials, supplies and other articles which should be purchased by said Reinemann and Kelsey for the plaintiffs, and upon the amount and price paid for services and labor employed from said defendant by the said Reinemann and Kelsey for the plaintiffs, and said Reinemann and Kelsey agreed to receive for themselves such commission, discount, and bonus. It is then alleged that between the dates specified said Reinemann and Kelsey, for the plaintiffs, procured and purchased wagons, automobiles, materials, and supplies, and had work and labor done by way of repairing amounting in the aggregate to $41,469.46, which plaintiffs paid to said defendant, and thereupon said defendant, in fulfillment of said corrupt agreement, paid to said Reinemann and Kelsey a commission, bonus, or discount amounting to about $4,146.65. There are numerous other allegations in the complaint designed to bring the case within the terms of section 439 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 40), which makes such an agreement as is set forth in the complaint unlawful and criminal. The theory of the complaint is that because defendant's acts in paying bribes to plaintiffs' servants were unlawful, and, if known to plaintiffs before they had paid anything to defendant, wpuld have furnished a defense to an action by him (Sirken v. Fourteenth, Street Store, 124 App. Div. 384, 108 N. Y. Supp. 830), therefore plaintiffs may now recover the sum so paid in an action for .money had and received, which defendant in equity and good conscience ought to return. Plaintiffs therefore seek to recover the whole amount which they have paid! to defendant between the dates named in the complaint. The Sirken Case, upon which plaintiffs rely, does not go to the extent of justifying a recovery of all the money paid. It went no further than to hold that the courts would not aid a seller who had been guilty of violating the law, but would leave him where he had put himself.
An action to recover back moneys already paid rests upon a wholly different foundation. Its gravamen is that the plaintiff has been damaged by the unlawful acts of the defendant, and the most that the plaintiff can recover is the amount of- his damage, being the difference between what he ought to have paid and what he did in fact pay, for, of course, in the present case, the plaintiffs cannot return what-they have received from defendant and rescind the contract. The plaintiffs cannot, therefore, recover the whole amount paid to defendant.
The demurrer, however, is to the effect that the complaint states no cause of action, and it cannot prevail if there-be any cause of action stated, even if it be for a less amount than that for which plaintiff prays judgment, for the prayer does not determine the sufficiency of the complaint. . Wetmore v. Porter, 92 N. Y. 76. It is alleged that as an incident to and embraced in the corrupt and unlawful agreement above recited it was further agreed, and the agreement was carried out, that unnecessary materials and work should be ordered and purchased, that excessive and extravagent prices should be charged, and that false charges should be made against plaintiffs for supplies and materials never furnished, and in divers other ways by collusion and conspiracy between the said employés and defendant the plaintiffs were cheated and defrauded. These allegations in my opinion set forth a cause of action justifying a recovery, although doubtless not for the full amount claimed in the complaint. If a complaint sets out a good cause of action, it is proof against a complaint for insufficiency, notwithstanding it may be inartificially framed or might have been obnoxious to a demurrer on other grounds. Por this reason the order appealed from should be affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to withdraw his demurrer and answer within 20 days upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
McLAUGHLIN and CLARICE, JJ" concur.