Case Name: Robert M. Rodgers, Respondent v. Amos S. Baker, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-03-31
Citations: 136 A.D. 851
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert M. Rodgers, Respondent v. Amos S. Baker, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
Robert M. Rodgers, Respondent v. Amos S. Baker, Appellant.
Second Department,
March 31, 1910.
Bills and notes — sale;—delivery of check to be filled in by seller — insertion of larger amount without authority — liability of payee.
Where on the sale, of .goods the buyer’s. agent delivered to the seller a check duly signed, but with the amount left blank, with direction that the seller' should insert the value of the goods purchased, but the seller liked in the check for a larger amount so as to cover another debt which he claimed was owing from the buyer, he is liable for the excess so collected.
Appeal by the defendant, Amos S. Baker, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of blew York, borough of Brooklyn,*in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the 19th day of October, *1909, after a trial without a jury.
Edwin G. Davis, for the appellant.
William Wills, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hirschberg, P. J.:
The plaintiff has recovered a judgment against the defendant for tlie sum of $183.50. and costs. The facts are somewhat peculiar, but I think the decision was correct. On the 24th day of April, 1909, the plaintiff sent one of his employees to the defendant's store to buy a keg of nails with a written order for the same. Rot knowing'the price, he gave him also 9, blank check, duly signed, and payable to the defendant's order, with directions to leave it at the store to be filled in by the defendant for the.-.purchase' price of the nails. The messenger purchased the nails at the price of $3.25 from the defendant's clerk, delivered the check to him, telling him it was to pay for the nails, and received at the same time a receipted bill for the amount. The defendant' was not present at the time, but on receipt of .a blank check from his clerk, filled it in in the sum of $186.75, and collected the money.
The pleadings were oral, the answer being a general denial only. On the trial the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was indebted to him in an open account in the sum of $183.50, and that the check being in blank, he filled it in for the amount, of such account added to the price of the nails. He did not produce his clerk as a witness, nor did lie testify that the clerk did not inform him that the check had been left to pay for the nails only. The account for $183.50 was not proven, and the plaintiff testified that his indebtedness to the defendant was only between $10 and $20. In the circumstances, the act of the. defendant in filling out the check for the sum which he did was unauthorized, and he is clearly liable to refund to the plaintiff the sum of money which he thus unlawfully collected and received.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Woodward, Jenks,. Thomas and Carr, JJ., concurred;
Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.