Case Name: STARIN v. FONDA
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-09-26
Citations: 95 N.Y.S. 379
Docket Number: 
Parties: STARIN v. FONDA.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 95
Pages: 379–381

Head Matter:
(107 App. Div. 539.)
STARIN v. FONDA.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
September 26, 1905.)
1. Action—Form—Contract ob Tobt.
Where the complaint alleges that the defendant received of the plaintiff as his agent certain sums of money for the use of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff demanded payment thereof, but that no part has been paid, and that there is “now due and owing” a certain sum, and demands judgment for a specified amount, with interest, and there is no allegation that the moneys were received in a fiduciary capacity, nor that the plaintiff has been damaged by reason of the facts stated, nor that the moneys have been converted to the defendant’s use or wrongfully withheld from plaintiff, the action is on contract, and not for tort.
2. Election of Remedies—Action fob Money Received.
• Where a complaint for money received by the defendant of the plaintiff “as his agent” was in form on contract, and not for tort, this amounted to a waiver of the plaintiff’s right to sue for any tort involved in the same transaction.
3. Reference—Grounds of Remedy.
Where a complaint states a cause of action on contract, and the trial of the action will involve the examination of a long account on the side of the plaintiff, consisting of several hundred items, the action may be properly referred.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 42, Cent Dig. Reference, §§ 13-23.]
Smith, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Montgomery County.
Action by John H. Starín against Nathan C. Fonda. From an order of reference, defendant appeals.
Modified.
Argued before PARKER, P. J., and SMITH, CHASE, CHESTER, and HOUSTON, JJ.
Wertheimer & Duffy (Leonard F. Fish, of counsel), for appellant.
George M. Albot, for 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 and owing" 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 and owing" 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 ob ligation 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 oí 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, 61 N. Y. Supp. 771.
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 conceded, 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 permitting 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 $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except SMITH, J.,. dissenting in opinion.