This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1893 Excerpt: ...an action to recover for money had and received, the defendant's admission that he had received more than the face of a mortgage, and had collected more than he should have done, is not inadmissible as varying the written instrument. 2. Same.--Nor is evidence that less has been received on a check than its face called for, or that nothing has been received on it, objectionable on that ground. 8. Same. Contradiction.--A material statement, brought out on the crossexamination of a witness, may be shown to be false by other testimony. 4. Money had and received.--A person who receives money for a specific purpose and keeps it, without applying it to such object, is liable in an action for money had and received. Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff and from order denying motion for a new trial. Action for money had and received by defendant for the use of plaintiff. The defendant's witness, Vernam, on cross-examination testified that in the transactions in controversy he was acting for plaintiff and her husband. Thereafter, on the examination of plaintiffs husband, he was allowed to testify that Vernam had no such authority. The charge excepted to is: "That is, having this mortgage for $3,500 either upon this or upon other property, if Mr. Reuben Ross received 11,700 and agreed to apply it in reducing the mortgage and he did not do so, then he has misappropriated the money, and a judgment can be recovered against him for the amount with interest. "On the other hand, if you believe Mr. Darragh's stateOpinion of the Court, by Barnard, P. J. ment and his theory that this mortgage was paid by him to Mr. Ross out of money which he carried around in his pocket; he says that he always had $2,000 or thereabouts in his pocket, then Mr. Ross has $1,700 of...