Melnick v. Sable
Louis Melnick v. Charles Sable
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
In an action to recover a sum of money delivered by plaintiff, to be retained as a deposit against his share in the prospective purchase of a gasoline station, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 21, 1959, after a jury trial, as dismisses the complaint against the individual defendants at the close of plaintiff’s case. Judgment insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. The money was delivered to the corporate defendant and the promise to return the money if the purchase was not consummated was that of the corporate defendant. There was no obligation on the part of the individual defendants. Nor was the evidence sufficient to prove any fraud on the part of the individual defendants. The money was turned over to the corporate defendant to be used for a specific purpose for the benefit of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, conversion will lie. (Britton v. Ferrin, 171 N. Y. 235 ; Balter v. New York Nat. Enoch. Bank, 100 N. Y. 31 ; Moffatt v. Fulton, 132 N. Y. 507, 515 .) An individual, even though acting for a corporation of which he is an officer, may be held liabile for conversion. (McCrea V. McClenahan, 131 App. Div. 247 ; Debobes v. Butterly, 210 App. Div. 50 .) But such liability accrues only against the individual officer who consummated the conversion through his personal action. There is no proof in this ease which of the individual defendants actively participated in the conversion. In any event, the liability for the conversion would be dischargeable in bankruptcy. (Wood V. Fisk, 215 N. Y. 233 ; Meyer v. Brice, 250 N. Y. 370 ; Davis v. YEtna Acceptance Co,, 293 U, S. 328.) Both of the individual *1076 defendants filed petitions in bankruptcy, listed plaintiff as a creditor, and received their discharge. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(A deposit delivered to a corporate defendant in anticipation of the purchase of business with the understanding that the money will be returned if the transaction was not consummated was sufficiently identifiable to support an action for conversion)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Schenin v. Micro Copper Corp.
- Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n
- Aeroglide Corp. v. Zeh
- Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Chemical Bank
- Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians, P. L. L. C.
- Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems Inc.
Most recent
- Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n
- PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans West Corp.
- Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians, P. L. L. C.
- Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Chemical Bank
- Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems Inc.
- Schenin v. Micro Copper Corp.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.