Case Name: Clark Snook, Respondent, v. Jarvis Lord, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-02-17
Citations: 56 N.Y. 605
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clark Snook, Respondent, v. Jarvis Lord, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
Clark Snook, Respondent, v. Jarvis Lord, Appellant.
(Argued February 4, 1874;
decided February 17, 1874.)
This was an action for money had and received. Plaintiff claimed, in substance, that he delivered to defendant a receipt for moneys due him for canal work, with a blank draft drawn on the canal auditor for the purpose of having the canal commissioner sign the same; that defendant procured the signature, collected the money, and refused to pay it over. It appeared that the receipt and draft were delivered by plaintiff to one Crennell; that Crennell delivered it to defendant for him to procure the canal commissioner’s signature; that such signature was procured and the draft returned to Crennell who collected it and claimed §1,000 thereof, offering to pay over the balance. Plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that defendant knew of his title and interest and that defendant promised to return the draft to him. This defendant denied.
Upon the examination of plaintiff as a witness, he was permitted to testify to statements made by Crennell to him, at the time of the delivery of the draft to Crennell, in substance, that he, Crennell, was acting as agent for defendant, who claimed an interest in the claim, and that it must be placed in his hands or the plaintiff could not get the draft signed or get the money; and that of the sum claimed by Crennell defendant was to have a portion. This testimony was objected to ; the court ruled it competent. After the decision of the court, plaintiff’s counsel stated that he intended to connect defendant with it; the court then stated, in substance, that as so connected it was admissible. No evidence was subsequently given showing that Crennell was agent for defendant or connecting the latter in any manner with the conversation. Held, that the first ruling of the judge was error, and that the same was not obviated as there was no proof connecting defendant with the conversation.
W. F. Cogswell for the appellant.
Frank Hiscock for the respondent.

Opinion:
Grover, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur; Andrews, J., not sitting.
Judgment reversed.