5 Denio 236 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1848
Without looking at the cloud of points made in this case, there is one objection which seems to me entirely fatal to the action. The usurious contract, if such was the true character of the agreement between these parties, was made on or shortly previous to the tenth of July, 1837. By that agreement the defendant, among other things, was to advance to the plaintiff, by way of loan or payment, the sum of $7,500, the plaintiff, on. his part, agreeing to assign and deliver to the defendant, as his own property, or by way of security for the amount to be paid by the plaintiff, the bonds and mortgages for which this action was brought. This agreement was fully consummated on said tenth of July, the money being then advanced and the securities assigned and delivered as agreed between the parties; but the present action was not commenced until October term, 1844, more than seven years after the bargain had been executed in the manner stated,.
A conversion of property is an act of malfeasance, not of mere nonfeasance; a positive wrong and not the mere omission of what was right. The manner in which possession of the property was acquired by the defendant in an action of trover, may be material with regard to the evidence of a conversion, for if the possession was rightful, some tortious use or disposition of the property, or a demand and refusal to deliver it, must be shown. But if possession was acquired wrongfully, that is always sufficient without a demand and refusal, or other evidence of a conversion. A wrongful taking or assumption of a right to control or dispose of property, constitutes a conversion. Indeed, any wrongful act which negatives or is inconsistent with the plaintiff’s right, is per se a conversion. It is not necessary that the defendant should have made use of the property in any way. “ Does he exercise a dominion over it in exclusion, or in defiance of the plaintiff’s right? If he does, that is in law a conversion, be it for his own or another person’s use." (Bristol v. Burt, 7 John. 254; Fouldes v. Willoughby, 8 M. & W. 540 ; 1 Ch. Pl. ed. of 1837, p. 176; 2 Stark. Ev. part 2, ed. of 1842, p. 1155 ; 2 Leigh's N. P. 1477.)
The contract upon which these securities were received by the defendant being usurious, was wholly void, and he thereby acquired no right to them. (1 R. S. 772, § 5.) Nor was his possession, although by manual delivery from the plaintiff, a rightful possession. On the contrary, it was not only acquired in violation of positive law, but, as respects the plaintiff, was compulsory and oppressive. The law regards whatever is done to obtain money on usurious terms, not as a voluntary act, but as the direct result of constraint and violence on the part of the usurer. The borrower on such terms is the slave of the lender; nay more, a slave in chains, and utterly incapable of resistance.
“ The law,” says Chief Justice Spencer, (Wheaton v. Hibbard, 20 John. 293,) “ considers the borrower rather as a victim than an aggressor. • The statute prohibits usury, in order to protect needy and necessitous persons from the oppression of usurers, . who are eager to take advantage of the distresses of others, and who violate the law only to complete their ruin. In such a case the maxim of potior est conditio defendentis has never been applied.” “ It would be absurd,” says the late Mr. Justice Story, “to apply the maxim volenti non fit injuria, to the case of a man who from mere necessity pays more than the other can in justice demand, and who has been significatrtly called the slave of the lender. He can in no just sense be said to pay voluntarily. And as to being particeps criminis, he stands in vinculis, and is compelled to submit to the terms which oppression and his necessities impose on him.” (1 Story’s Eq. Juris. 3d ed. § 302; see also Clarke v. Shee, Cowp. 197 ; Holman v. Johnson, id. 341; Browning v. Morris, id. 790; Smith v. Bromley, Doug. 696, note; Bosanquet v. Dashwood, Cas. Temp. Talb. 39; Cowen & Hill’s Notes to 1 Phil. Ev. p. 1447.) These rules and principles are salutary and well settled. It is manifest, therefore, that the securities in question were not delivered to the defendant voluntarily, but were acquired by compulsion and wrong. They were exacted by the defendant for his own use and as his own property, and were held in exclusion and defiance of the plaintiff. In reason and sound sense, sustained by all the authorities on the subject, these acts must be held to constitute an actual conversion of the property. The plaintiff, therefore, might have brought suit on the very day when the securities reached the defendant’s
It was urged;.on the argument, that the defendant- acquired', a rightful possession1'of these-securities; as they passed'directly-into his hands by delivery, from the plaintiff himself and therefore that no action would lie. until demand and refusal to re-
Í
store the property, or something- amounting to an-actual conversion had taken place. The remarks made by Chief Justice Nelson; in deciding the case of Boughton v. Bruce, (20 Wend. 235,) were referred to as authority on this point, and it must be admitted-, that they afford some countenance to the argument. But that' was an action of replevin in the detinet, not trover, as this is. There, may be a difference on this point, between these actions, as there is-in some respects between trespass and trover. But- whether this be so or not, the remarks made in that case cannot be taken as controlling in an action of trover.
Tregoning v. Attenborough, (7 Bing. 97,) was an action of trover for goods deposited.to secure a usurious loan. It does not appear from, the report of. the case that any demand had been made, nor was the objection taken ; the only point left"to the jury was whether, the . goods- had been deposited on a contract-to pay more than.the legal rate ofinterest for money adnanced, which the jury found- was the fact, and the plaintiff had a verdict. This was-in the court of common.pleas, and a-subsequent case of the-same character-in the king’s bench was disposed of in the same way, no objection being- taken that a demand of. the property had. not been- made; (Hargreaves v. Hutchinson, 2 Adol. & Ellis, 12.)
At common law. a party who has paid money on a usurious, contract, may recover the excess paid beyond the- legal rate of interest, in an action.of assumpsit; without having made a demand for a-return of the money. (Wheaton v. Hibbard, supra.) No such action would lie in any case; if the payment could be regarded as made voluntarily, and certainly not without-first demanding a return of the money. That the money may be so
Where goods are delivered on a contract of sale-, which the seller was induced to enter into by the fraud of the purchaser, no right or title to-the property is acquired by the latter. (Earl of Bristol v. Wilsmore, 1 Barn, & Cress. 514; Read v. Hutchinson, 3 Camp. 352; Acker v. Campbell, 23 Wend. 372; Ash v. Putnam, 1 Hill, 302 ; Cary v. Hotaling, id. 311.) Trover may, in such case, be brought by the seller withou t first making a demand of the goods, for the taking was tortious. (Thurston v. Blanchard, 22 Pick. 18; Lamb v. Clark, 5 id. 193,197.)Trespass or replevin is also maintainable under such circumstances. (Cary v. Hotaling, supra.) In this case, (p. 314,) Cowen, J. remarked, “It is said that tlie owner consented to the taking, and were that so, it would undoubtedly be a sufficient answer. But consent, in law, is more than a mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake,” and he might have added, usury. Again, in the same case, (p. 315,) “ That the owner’s mere manual delivery of goods, will not save the deliveree from the imputation of trespass, is illustrated in the case of a bailment obtained with an intent to deprive the owner of his property-The bailee is considered as the taker, and may be convicted of larceny, under an indictment alleging that he feloniously stole, took and carried away the property, contrary to the owner’s consent. The form of a sale, unless within the statute as to' false pretences, saves him from the charge of taking in a criminal sense; but for alt civil purposes there is no delivery any more than in the case of bailment. In other words, for the purpose of a civil suit, the sale-is void ; though for the purpose of a criminal prosecution it is voidable only.” (See also Rams-dell v. Morgan, 16 Wend. 574.)
Summersett V. Jarvis, (3 Brod. & Bing. 2,) was an action of trover, brought against the assignees under a commission of bankruptcy issued against the plaintiff. They insisted that the plaintiff should deliver to them his books, which he accordingly did, and this action was brought to recover their value
On the ninth of June, 1838, more than six years before the present action was commenced, a payment was made to the defendant on one of these bonds. Receiving this payment was a very decisive assertion of ownership, the payment being made to and received by the defendant for his own exclusive use and benefit. It necessarily negated all right on the part of the plaintiff. Although, if there had been no previous conversion of this bond, the receipt of payment upon it, in the character of owner, would have constituted a conversion, and consequently the statute of limitations would have been a bar to this action, so far as respects that obligation ; still, I do not look upon the payment as of any consequence in this case. The defendant had induced the plaintiff, by what the law holds to be gross oppression, ■ to make a transfer of these securities, and’ they were held by the defendant as his own property,- and not in subordination to any right on the part of the plaintiff Such a taking and holding seem to me quite as decisive assertions of property and right, as the act of receiving payment can be.
This was spoken of on the argument as an extreme case of usury, and if such was its true character we may greatly regret that the plaintiff should be remediless. After a delay of more than seven years, however, the law can hardly be reproached for closing its door against the plaintiff ' The statute of limitations is a wise law, for there ought to be a period beyond
In my view of this case the statute of limitations constitutes an absolute bar to a recovery, and therefore this verdict should be set aside
McKissock, J. concurred.
This case is one of considerable importance both in regard to the amount involved and the questions to be determined. The common' case in the books is that of a loan of money, and the sale of stock, goods, or other property at a price beyond its value, extorted from the necessities of the borrower, and securities taken for the payment of the whole, embracing the money loaned and the price of the property sold. The agreement of the 26th of June seems to present just such a case, in writing. The defendant agrees to loan $7,500 for ten years, and to sell certain real estate at certain prices, and the plaintiff agrees to secure the balance after deducting the incumbrance on the real estate, by' approved bonds and mortgages. Here is an agreement for a loan coupled with a sale of real estate, the whole to be secured by bonds and mortgages. It only remains to be shown by parol that the prices thus agreed to be paid for the real estate, were beyond its actual value, and that the agreement to pay such prices was extorted from the necessities of the plaintiff, to make it the precise case so often put in the books. The agreement of the 26th of June was not carried out in its details until the 10th July, and then not precisely according to the letter of the agreement. Thus, the plaintiff, instead of securing the amount of the money loaned, and the price of the real estate sold, by bonds and mortgages, giving his personal responsibility for the payment of the whole, as the agreement of June 26th would seem to con?
This furnishes the defendant with facts to argue plausibly that as the arrangement was finally consummated, there was but a sale of land by the defendant for the plaintiff’s bonds and mortgages, and that to the extent of those bonds and mortgages, the plaintiff .not becoming personally responsible by any direct or collateral promise or ¡covenant, the contract was closed and .executed; and that ,it was only as to the balance of .$5,063 which the plaintiff had given his bond to pay, if as to any thing, that usury could he predicated.
Two positions might thus perhaps plausibly be -taken: 1. That ¡the transaction was .a ¡sale, not a loan: 2. If a loan, that it was -not insurious. But the whole matter in. this aspect of the case has be.en submitted to the jury by a charge which in this -respect w.as ¡unexceptionable, and the jury have found that it was a loan and not -a sale, ¡and that it was .an usurious loan, and that the lands were imposed upon the necessities of -the plaintiff at prices above their .actual -value. Such a finding under such a charge relieves us from ¡the -necessity of .examining the evidence to determine whether it was warranted by the proofs. W¡e ¡are here, upon a bill of exceptions, to assume as true all that was .so proved, and hence to regard -it as a matter of fact that -there was an -usurious loan. The whole arrangement .appears to have been but one entire thing, though consummated by agreements which were partly ¡executory and partly ¡executed.' It is idle to say that -the -bonds and mortgages were assigned in satisfaction or payment of a previous usurious -loan. There .had been no previous loan of any kind. There was an agreement for ¡a loan, and -the ¡plaintiff was «o
If the assignment of these bonds and mortgages was wholly void, as appears to be clearly declared by the act, then the title did not pass from the plaintiff; and if he can maintain trover at all he must recover the entire value of the thing, because in trover the plaintiff goes upon his legal title. It is true that it was held in Fitzroy v. Gwillim, (1 T. R. 153,) that the plaintiff could not ' recover in trover until he had paid the money borrowed with lawful interest, on the assumed ground that trover was an equitable action. But this has been overruled, distinctly and decidedly, both in principle and result, it being held in such cases that trover will lie because it.is a strict legal action. (Tregoning v. Altenborough, 7 Bing. R. 97 ; Hingerball v. Hutchinson, 2 Adol. & E. 12.) See also Ramsdell v. . Morgan, (16 Wend. 574,) where all the cases are collected.
If this contract was wholly void there can be no pretence that it has acquired any validity by subsequent ratification. It is perhaps impossible that an usurious contract should be rendered" valid, while still unpurged of the usury, by any act of ratification between the parties to it.. There may be cases where the rights of others supervene, that the 'defence will not be permitted to be set up, but none which go upon the ground of valid ratification between the'same parties. There are some cases' referred to by Bronson, J. in Doe v. Van Wyck, (2 Hill, 522,) which I think may be put upon other grounds than ratification. But if any principle of this kind is applicable to any possible case, it can' have no application here. The ratification relied upon in this case is in the execution of the assignments on the 10th of July, to carry into effect the contract of 26th of June. At that time the plaintiff was under the original pressure of want of the money; and a contract, whether void or voidable, cannot be ratified while a party is under the pressure of the same circumstances which induced him to enter into it. (1 Story's Eq. § 345.)
Neither is there any ground for s'aying that the usurious debt was paid by the assignment of the mortgages. The cre
Though I have come to the conclusion that the assignments were wholly void, and that consequently the title to the bonds and mortgages never passed from the plaintiff, yet the possession of these instruments by the defendant was not tortious. Such possession was delivered by the plaintiff who had the right of property and might lawfully deliver, as the defendant might lawfully receive possession. (Boughton v. Bruce, 20 Wend. 234.) The defendant being lawfully in possession, a payment to him by the mortgagors would probably be a good payment and protect them from again paying the plaintiff who was all the time the legal owner. But these consequences, if they resulted at all, would not result from any deference to any fancied right of the defendant, but because the plaintiff had put it in the power of the defendant by an apparently good assignment and delivery of possession to hold himself out as owner. If the mortgagors, relying upon such apparently legal ownership, should pay to the defendant in good faith, it would be inequitable in the plaintiff to repudiate such payment and demand payment a second time. He would be estopped by his own act which, though void, innocent third persons might rely upon. Such third persons are protected not because the defendant has any title by virtue of the assignment from the plaintiff, but because as between the plaintiff and such third persons it is inequitable for the plaintiff to set up that he conveyed no real title to the defendant, when he invested him with every apparent evidence of legal title.
It is urged by the defendant that as the mortgagors are protected in their payments to him, and the plaintiff has done nothing to repudiate the contract before such payments were made, tliE.t the plaintiff cannot recover the money so paid in this action of trover. I think it is true that as regards the payments made by the mortgagors to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover in trover, but must resort to his action for monsy
The defendant further urges that the plaintiff cannot recover in trover until after a demand of possession of the defendant and refusal to deliver. It is true that so long as these bonds and mortgages were in the possession of the defendant himself, as his .original possession was not tortious, a-demand would be necessary to maintain trover. (Boughton v. Bruce, 20 Wend. 234.) But the defendant had assigned both these mortgages, and both had been paid in full long before the commencement of this suit. A demand therefore after these acts would be an idle ceremony. A demand is usually necessary to furnish evidence of a conversion when the original taking was not tortious. If there has been an actual conversion a-demand cannot be necessary. (Tompkins v. Haile, 3 Wend. 406.) It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff that the sale of these securities was a conversion in fact,-dispensing-with evidence of-demand ; and it is usually held that a sale of chattels is evidence of conversion. (Everett v. Coffin, 6 Wend. 603.)
We have then this state of facts. The defendant has received upon the mortgages assigned to him certain payments from the mortgagors. F.or the payments so received it is conceded that damages cannot be recovered in this,action. If the defendant had received -from the mortgagors payment in full, it would seem to follow that recovery could not be had in this action. But instead of -receiving such payment from the mortgagors the defendant has realized the whole money secured by the mortgages at once by a sale of them. This state of facts presents one of the most material and important questions in this cause. Whether trover will lie for the mortgages so sold to recover- as damages their value at the -time of the sale? The defendant insists that the action must be for money had and received, in which case the recovery would be limited to the usurious excess of interest. The plaintiff resorts to this action, which is strictly a lega-l one, so that his recovery may not be thus limited. To maintain trover the plaintiff must -have
It may be well in this ¡connexion to consider the fact of conversion in connection with the defence of the statute of limitations. I think the limitation of suits for forfeitures does not apply to this case. (2 R. S. 298, $ 31.) Though .the assignment of these mortgages are made void by § 5 of the statutein relation to the interest of money, yet this suit is not for a forfeiture within the meaning of the provision above referred to. The action of trover is to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrued. (2 R .iS. 295, § 18.) The cause of action accrues in trover from the conversion of the personal •property which is the subject matter of the action. When was the conversion in this case ? The assignment .and delivery .of the mortgages to the defendant were in July, 163.7, more than six years before the commencement of -the suit. Kirk, -one of the mortgagors, made a payment to the defendant on his mort
But it is contended, on the authority of Stafford v, Richardson, (15 Wend. 302,) that though a suit could not be maintained until after demand or conversion, yet that the statute commenced running from the time the defendant took the mortgages into his possession. (See, however, Murray v. Coster, 20 John. R. 576 ; Lillie v. Hoyt, 5 Hill, 398.) The decision referred to is not applicable to this case. Trover is an action of tort, and there is no tort and therefore no cause of action until a conversion. The conversion being within six years before the commencement of the suit, the statute of limitations is no bar.
The judge was also correct in ruling that the bill in chancery filed by this plaintiff against the defendant in this cause, and the decree thereon, was neither a bar nor an estoppel to this suit. That bill was filed for a different purpose—on account of fraud in relation to the appraisement of the lands, and the decree was expressly without prejudice to any suit, either at law or equity, on any other ground.
I apprehend also that the judgment on the bond given by the plaintiff to the defendant as a part of the usurious transaction, is no bar to the present suit. That judgment was rendered in a suit commenced on the bond in the usual way; the defendant neglected to plead, and judgment was taken against him by default. The question of usury was not tried iii that suit
The result of the examination of this case thus far has been to sustain the plaintiff in the general views he has taken of the case, and the circuit judge in his several decisions which have been the subject of exception.
There is one point clearly made by the defendant without any argument offered in its support, and to which the plaintiff has not replied at all, that seems to me to deserve more attention than has been given to it, if indeed it is not of itself decisive of this case. In the provisions of the revised statutes under the title of “ pleadings and set-offs” it is enacted that “If an action of trover be brought for any goods or other thing received contrary to the provisions of any statute, the plaintiff shall set forth in his declaration that such goods or other things were converted by the defendant contrary to the provisions of such statute, referring to the same as prescribed in the preceding sections. (2 R. S. 352, § 3.) The preceding section gives the plaintiff permission, without making it imperative, in debt or assumpsit for money received contrary to the provisions of any statute, to declare
New trial ordered.