Schuster v. Bowen

California Court of Appeal May 26, 1950 No. Civ. 4018Published

Before: Shepard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant acted within his authority in filling in a blank check provided by the plaintiff for his protection, as the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the amount was not excessive and the check was cashed within a reasonable time given the parties' ongoing financial dealings.

Issues

Whether a blank check was filled in contrary to the maker's instructions and for an excessive amount.
Whether the check was cashed after an unreasonable lapse of time.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Fundamentally, however, the law does not forbid a man to give a blank cheek and couple it with general authority.”

“We conclude that under the peculiar circumstances of this case the trial court was justified in refusing to find that the check was retained for an unreasonable length of time.”

SHEPARD, J. pro tem.

Action to recover money paid to defendant by cheek signed in blank and filled in by defendant. Defendant, in the years 1945 and 1946, acted as employee, manager, joint operator and financial supporter of certain farm properties of plaintiff. Plaintiff at various times became indebted to defendant for unpaid wages, money advanced by defendant to plaintiff for farm operations of plaintiff, money loaned, crop shares, and farm machinery belonging to defendant and sold by plaintiff for his own account. Partial payments were made from time to time but a complete and final settlement had not been made up to the time the event occurred upon which this action is based.

The first part of July, 1946, plaintiff went on a fishing trip and before leaving said to defendant:

“I will sign a blank cheek and give it to you for protection in our dealings. ’ ’

Plaintiff did sign the check and handed it to defendant

without any other direction

as to what amount should be filled in. Defendant laid the cheek away and nothing further was said about it until after 30 June, 1947, on which date defendant filled it in for $6,850 and cashed it at plaintiff’s bank.

Plaintiff sued to recover the full amount of the check, contending at the trial that the check had been stolen and also contending that it had been filled in for an excessive amount and that it had not been cashed within a reasonable time. These issues were all decided against plaintiff by the trial court and judgment was rendered for defendant.

On appeal plaintiff urges only the two points last above mentioned, that is, plaintiff contends that the evidence conclusively shows that the check was filled in contrary to and in excess of the instructions of the maker and that an unreasonable lapse of time was allowed to expire before the check was cashed.

In order to better understand the contentions of the parties a brief résumé of the major phases of the financial transactions of the parties is desirable. Defendant started work for plaintiff 3 February, 1945, at $200 per month. During the following two years he loaned $3,000 at one time and $3,600 at

[805]

Schuster v. Bowen

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief