This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Jones' (P) employed Winsor (D) as their attorney. P wanted a railway license from the city council. P had to pay $2,500 to the city, and he gave the money to D along with $130 more for D to consummate the transaction. The city refused to issue a license to D and returned the monies to D. D took the funds and D charged $1,250 for his services by rendering a bill and the balance of the monies. P sued and claimed that D's services were worth less than $250 and that the money received by D was for the benefit and use of P. D still had the $1,000, but had returned the balance of the monies to P. The complaint alleged that P asked D to return the money, that he refused to do so, and that D had wrongfully and fraudulently converted the $1,000 to his own use. D demurred; the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under trover or conversion (it did not allege that P owned the $1,000 at the time that D allegedly converted it). D also claimed a defect in the complaint as it could not be determined if P was suing for conversion or in assumpsit for money had and received. P replied that the action was for money had and received, and the rest was surplusage. The court did not grant the demurrer and D appealed. The court states that it could not determine from the complaint whether P intended that the action should be for money had and received or conversion.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.