Gould

On the fifth day of January, 1922, respondent commenced this action against the appellant for the sum of $1,301.58, alleging that the latter had within two years next preceding said date received the same for and on account of moneys had and received for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, which the defendant had agreed to repay upon demand; that on or about October 14, 1921, the plaintiff demanded repayment of the same, but that the defendant had failed and refused to pay said sum or any part thereof, and that the whole amount was then due and owing. It was also alleged “that said moneys were the sole and separate property of plaintiff.”

Appellant answered, denying that she had received, or was indebted to the plaintiff, “whether in the sum of $1,300.00, or in any other sum or at all. Admits and alleges however, that she did, within the year 1921, receive the sum of $1,290.00 from the plaintiff for the sole purpose of acting as custodian of said moneys.” It was further denied that demand had been made, or that any sum of money remained due, owing or unpaid, but, on the contrary, appellant alleged that she had repaid all of the moneys so admitted to have been received by her…