Stiller v. Rogers

California Court of Appeal May 29, 1945Published

Before: Kincaid

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an attorney who accepted funds from a client with knowledge of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent person on inquiry regarding the stolen nature of those funds is not a holder in due course and must return the money to the rightful owner.

Issues

Whether evidence supported the finding that an attorney knew or should have known that funds received from a client were stolen.
Whether an attorney who accepts stolen funds under suspicious circumstances can qualify as a holder in due course.
Whether a common count for money had and received is a proper cause of action to recover stolen funds from an assignee.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court was warranted by the evidence in concluding that the defendant either knew or should have known that at least part of the moneys so received by him were stolen funds, and that such knowledge disqualified the defendant from becoming a holder in due course.”

“Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, has constructive notice of the fact itself in all cases in which, by prosecuting such inquiry, he might have learned such fact.”

69 Cal.App.2d Supp. 805 (1945) FRANK STILLER, Respondent,

BETTY ROGERS et al., Defendants; BERTRAM S. HARRIS, Appellant.

California Court of Appeals.

May 29, 1945. Bertram S. Harris, in pro per., and Joseph Duchowny for Appellant.

Paul G. McIver for Respondent.

KINCAID, J.

The real question before us for determination is whether the evidence supports the court's findings that of the $200 received by the defendant lawyer from the sheriff, on order of Betty Rogers, $149 was money stolen from plaintiff by her and that the defendant knew or should have known that such money was so stolen. The fact that she did steal $918 from him is not questioned here, and the evidence is ample to show it.

[1] Viewing the evidence, as we must, most favorably in support of the judgment, the record discloses facts readily sufficient to warrant the trial court in finding that, of the $501 [69 Cal.App.2d Supp. 807] found on the person of Betty Rogers at her arrest and deposited with the sheriff under a "Sheriff's hold order," all but $51 thereof belonged to plaintiff and had been stolen from him by her. The $918 in currency so stolen from plaintiff was mostly in $50 bills and $450 of the money found on the person of Miss Rogers was in the form of nine $50 bills, the balance of $51 being in small currency. After its deposit with the sheriff, it had been turned over to the county treasurer as depositary and there commingled with general funds. The evidence further shows that such money was booked on September 29 and, on October 19, after the preliminary hearing of Miss Rogers, the defendant Harris was retained, received a written order upon the sheriff to pay him $200 of the deposited moneys as attorney fees, and upon presentation was informed by the sheriff that such moneys had a "hold" upon them. After some delay and at such defendant's insistence, the sheriff delivered the $200 to defendant from such deposited funds.

[2a] The appealing defendant is an attorney at law. In accepting employment to represent Betty Rogers, he must have known that she was charged with the theft of $918 in currency from the plaintiff and that evidence sufficient to bind her over to the superior court for trial on such charge had been adduced at the preliminary hearing. He knew from both her and the sheriff that a considerable sum had been found on her person at her arrest and had been impounded with a "hold order" thereon.

Stiller v. Rogers

AI Brief

KINCAID, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief