This case was decided in favor of the defendant by the application of the well settled rule, that where two rival claimants demand payment, each in his own right, of the debt which the debtor owes to one of them only, if the debtor pays the wrong claimant, the debt due to the rightful creditor is not thereby affected, and he acquires no title to recover the money of the party who wrongfully claimed and received it. (Patrick v. Metcalf, 37 N. Y., 332; Butterworth v. Gould, 41 id., 450.) But this rule rests upon the basis that the wrongful claimant obtains the money upon his own independent claim; that in using his own he does not prejudice his competitors; that he does not exercise any right or title of which he has wrongfully divested his competitor; that he is not assuming any agency for him; that he is not in privity with him. (Carver v. Creque, 48 N. Y., 385; Peckham v. Van Wagenen, 83 id., 40; Hathaway v. Town of Cincinnatus, 62 id., 434; Bradley v. Root, 5 Paige, 632.)
*421Here the defendant bad made an absolute gift of tbe bank-book, and of the title to demand aDd receive the money represented by it, to the plaintiff. When the defendant, by force and against the will of the plaintiff, took the bank-book from her, he knew that he had no title to it or the money represented by it. Whatever claim he might assert to the money he well knew rested upon his fraud, if not upon his crime. But he thus obtained the physical power and apparent authority to represent the plaintiff in the presentation of the book to the bank, and by the act of presenting the book he did represent that whatever title or authority she had in the matter was exercisable by him, and he thus obtained the money.
He can take no advantage from his own wrong, and since he could not, in the absence of any title from the plaintiff, lawfully, as against her, obtain the money except as her agent, he may not, with the proceeds in his pocket, deny that he obtained them in the only manner in which he could lawfully obtain them.
It is probable the plaintiff could have maintained an action against the bank, since the bank had notice of her rights. But it was open to the plaintiff to elect to adopt the acts of the defendant or repudiate them. He shall not be heard to plead his own turpitude, and is therefore estopped to deny that he did not assume to act as the agent of the plaintiff. She may waive the tort, adopt his acts, and compel him to restore their fruits.
It comes to the same result if we regard the defendant as trustee ex maleficio. He knew that by his gift the book and the money it represented, and the rights it conferred, were the plaintiff’s. He took the book by force, exercised her rights, and obtained the money. It was his duty to do nothing with her property and her rights for his own advantage, and he is, at her election, her trustee ex maleficio of the proceeds of his acts of usurpation. He held the proceeds of the book by same title that he held the book, and as he had no title to the book he had none to its proceeds, and must account to the true owner. (Comstock v. Hier, 73 N. Y., 269.)
The judgment should'be reversed, new trial granted, referee discharged, costs to abide event.
Bockes, J., concurred.