Reifman v. Micon, 207 Ill. App. 175 (1917)

July 11, 1917 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 22,198

207 Ill. App. 175

Samuel Reifman, Defendant in Error, v. Samuel Micon, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,198.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Assumpsit, Action of, § 44 ^* — nature of action for money had and received for use of another. An action for money had and received for the use of another is equitable in its nature.

2. Vendor and purchaser — when evidence insufficient to show quadrilateral contract with agents of respective parties. Evidence held insufficient to establish a quadrilateral contract between the owner of land, his agent, the purchasers, and their agent concerning the deposit of a certain sum in a certain bank by the purchasers’ agent, where the sellers and purchasers agreed in the contract which they signed as parties that their agents should deposit, one the contract, and the other, the initial payment, simultaneously with the bank where defendant was merely acting under the instructions of his principal.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Mahoney, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Reversed.

Opinion filed July 11, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action for money had and received hy Samuel Reifman, plaintiff, against Samuel Micon, defendant, to recover the sum of $200 which defendant had received from his clients, and which, pursuant to a contract between intending purchasers for whom defendant was agent and intending sellers for whom plaintiff was agent, was to he deposited in a bank with the contract, which contract was to be deposited by plaintiff’s attorney, hut which sum defendant' had returned to his clients, due to a disagreement between defendant and plaintiff’s attorney. From a judgment for plaintiff for $200, defendant brings error.

Arthur W. Dixon, for plaintiff in error.

William M. Tannebaum, for defendant in error.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Assumpsit, Action of, § 56* — -when agent not deemed to have received money for the use of another. An agent for the purchasers of land who receives the initial payment from his clients cannot be deemed to have received money for the use of the sellers under a contract for the sale of land, where" he received it for the purpose of depositing it with a certain bank, which, in turn, was to hold it for the mutual benefit of the parties concerned, and the agent returned the money to the principal.