Tracy v. Gaudin

MARKS, J.

Respondent instituted this action to recover the sum of $510 from appellant, being money paid him by Harold Tracy, deceased, then a minor under the age of eighteen years, as the purchase price of an automobile. Judgment was rendered in his favor.

The case was submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts from which it appears that on June 10, 1926, Harold Tracy was of the age of sixteen years and that Percy Tracy was the duly and regularly appointed and acting guardian of his person and estate. The guardian had the sum of $576.51, belonging to the minor, on deposit in a bank in the city of Tulare. Appellant owned and operated an agency for the sale of automobiles and Harold Moffet was employed by him as a salesman. The minor went with Moffet to the home of Percy Tracy, the guardian, and tried to get his permission for the purchase of an automobile by the minor from appellant with guardianship funds. This permission was refused by the guardian.

About June 18, 1926, the minor forged the name of his guardian to a withdrawal slip on which he obtained $510 of the guardianship funds from the bank, which he placed in the form of a cashier’s check, with which he purchased an automobile from appellant, paying for the same in full. A few days later the minor traded the automobile, pur

[160]

chased from appellant, to another as part payment on a more expensive car. The minor died on July 23, 1926, and Percy Tracy was appointed administrator of his estate on August 11, 1926, and thereafter qualified as such and entered upon the discharge of his duties.

The exact date respondent first learned of the withdrawal of the $510 by the minor from the guardianship account does not appear, except that it was after the automobile obtained from appellant had been traded off by the minor, and prior to August 9, 1926. On this day the bank credited the guardianship account with $510, which credit it later canceled and refused to restore the money to respondent. At no time did either the minor or respondent restore, or offer to restore, to appellant the automobile which the minor had purchased from him, or its value. On January 7, 1927, respondent demanded the sum of $510 from appellant, which demand was refused. This action was instituted to recover the money and judgment was rendered for respondent.