Blanck v. Nelson
Opinion of the Court
We think the first cause of action set forth in the complaint is good. It is true the plaintiff held the bonds there mentioned only as collateral security for the payment of the debt to him. Nevertheless, his special property as pledgee was sufficient to authorize him to maintain an action for conversion of the bonds against any wrongdoer. The damage to the plaintiff by the conversion of the bonds is apparent. Even assuming that the debtor pays his note to the plaintiff, the plaintiff must return the bonds to the pledgor, or account for their value.
The complaint sets forth facts which, if established by the evidence, are sufficient to constitute embezzlement and to subject the defendant to arrest under the provisions of section 549 of the Code of Oivil Procedure, and if it should happen that the court, in com
There does not appear to be any force in the contention that the causes of action are misjoined; they are both based upon the misconduct of the defendant while acting as attorney for the plaintiff, and are clearly within the scope of section 484, Code of Civil Procedure.
In the case of Quail v. Nelson (ante, p. 18), which has received the attention of this court at the present term, we have considered the remaining points urged upon the attention of the court in the case at bar, and it is not necessary to again go over the ground.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
All concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.