Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
Shepherd T. Knapp, Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Walter Roche, Appellant
62 N.Y. 614·New York Court of Appeals·1875·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Shepherd T. Knapp, Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Walter Roche, Appellant.
(Argued April 12, 1875;
decided May 25, 1875.)
This action was brought by plaintiff, as receiver of the Bowling Green Savings Bank, against defendant, who was vice-president of said bank, for an alleged unlawful conversion of the moneys and property of said bank. The principal questions in the case were disposed of upon the facts.
Upon the trial the court allowed an amendment of the complaint increasing the demand for judgment to conform to the proofs. Reid, no error.
By'the charter of the bank its officers were prohibited from borrowing, directly or indirectly, its funds. Evidence was given tending to show that defendant took checks upon the bank, signed by its secretary and president, and used them in individual stock speculations. These checks were paid by other checks upon banks where said savings bank kept its funds on deposit. Defendant’s, counsel' claimed that there was no conversion as defendant did not actually take the moneys of the bank. Held, that the transaction amounted "to an unlawful taking and misappropriation of the funds of the institution. '
James C. Carter for the appellant.
John E. Develin for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Miller, J.,]
Miller, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur; Church, Ch. J., concurring in result.
Judgment reversed.