Volandri v. Hlobil

KAUFMAN, P. J.

Defendant, J. S. J. Hlobil, appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff-payee in an action on a promissory note signed by defendant and one T. 0. Toon. He argues on appeal that: (1) the facts do not support the trial court’s finding that the defense of forgery was not available; and (2) no recovery can he had on a forged signature under the Negotiable Instrument Law, as such recovery is against public policy.

The undisputed facts are as follows: In July 1955, defendant Hlobil was the owner of a 50 per cent interest in a certain patent which he claimed was being infringed by Boeing Air

[658]

craft Corporation under contract with the United States Air Force. By a letter dated July 20, 1955, defendant Hlobil gave T. O. Toon complete authority to act as his agent to negotiate a settlement of the claim with officials of the United States Government. Defendant did not have sufficient funds for the expenses of negotiating such settlement. Defendant in writing authorized Toon to sell up to 7 per cent of his interest in the infringement claim. The proceeds of such sales were to be used to pay Toon’s expenses in attempting to settle the claim. On July 26, 1955, plaintiff Maud Volandri gave to Toon $3,000 in return for a contract assigning to her 3 per cent of Hlobil’s interest in the claim, and the following promissory note:

“$3,000.00 July 26, 1955

“One year after date, without grace we promise to pay to the order of M. O. Volandri Three Thousand Dollars For value received with interest from date at the rate of 5% per cent per annum until paid principal and interest payable in lawful money of the United States at 2427 Larkin Street, San Francisco, California and in case suit is instituted to collect this note or any portion

there

we promise to pay such additional sum as the Court may adjudge reasonable as Attorneys fees in said suit.

S/ T. O. Toon

S/ J. S. J. Hlobil

No. Due July 26,1956”

The signature of defendant Hlobil on this note was, unknown to the plaintiff, executed by T. 0. Toon and not the defendant Hlobil. The $3,000 obtained by Toon from the plaintiff was used to pay various expenses in an attempted settlement of the infringement claim.