From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frick v. Freudenthal

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1904
45 Misc. 348 (N.Y. App. Term 1904)

Opinion

November, 1904.

Michael C. Gross, for appellant.

Adolph Bloch (William L. Mathot, of counsel), for respondents.


The complaint as we read and construe it is, and was intended to be in tort, for the conversion of rents of certain real property alleged to have been collected and received by the defendant as the plaintiffs' agent, and not upon contract, for money had and received to the plaintiffs' use. This is apparent from the allegations that the moneys were received by the defendant in a fiduciary capacity and that he has embezzled and fraudulently misapplied the same to his own use. The purport of these allegations is obvious; it is to enable the plaintiffs to cause the defendant's arrest pending the action, and to enforce a judgment in their favor by execution against the defendant's person. Code Civ. Pro., § 549, subd. 2; § 1487, subd. 2. Nor should these allegations be treated as surplusage, as the defendant contends they may be (Fyfe v. Jackson, 55 A.D. 74), since their substantiation by proof upon the trial is material to the plaintiffs' right of recovery. Code Civ. Pro., § 549, subd. 2. True, the prayer of the complaint in terms demands judgment for a liquidated amount, with interest from a specified date, and not for damages as is ordinarily the case in actions sounding in tort; but the prayer for judgment forms no part of the statement of the cause of action. It may, where the complaint is ambiguous, be resorted to for the purposes of ascertaining the pleader's intention, but it cannot control the nature of the action as against a clearly expressed intention to the contrary. The counterclaim did not embody a cause of action "arising out of the contract or transaction, set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiffs' claim," nor was it "connected with the subject of the action" (Code Civ. Pro., § 501, subd. 1), and the demurrer thereto was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents.

FREEDMAN, P.J. and FITZGERALD, J., concur.

Juddgment affirmed, with costs to respondents.


Summaries of

Frick v. Freudenthal

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1904
45 Misc. 348 (N.Y. App. Term 1904)
Case details for

Frick v. Freudenthal

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE F. FRICK, and AUGUSTA FRICK, Respondents, v . WILLIAM FREUDENTHAL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Nov 1, 1904

Citations

45 Misc. 348 (N.Y. App. Term 1904)
90 N.Y.S. 344

Citing Cases

Powers v. Rosenbloom

"Allegations necessary for recovery cannot be rejected as surplusage." 49 C. J. 85 n. 30 a. Head v. Powell,…