McNear v. Bourn

California Supreme Court Dec 9, 1898 No. Sac. No. 422Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants were not liable for the value of a forged warehouse receipt issued by a former agent because the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's agent had notice of the former agent's discharge was supported by sufficient evidence.

Issues

Did the defendants' failure to provide notice of their agent's discharge render them liable for a forged receipt issued by that agent?
Was there sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's agent had notice of the discharge prior to purchasing the receipt?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It was the province of the trial judge to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to accept or reject such portion of the evidence as to him seemed worthy or unworthy of credence.”

Synopsis

Forged Warehouse Receipt—Agency—Notice to Purchaser.—The purchaser oí a forged warehouse receipt, which was signed in blank by one who had ceased to be the agent in charge of the warehouse, and which was fraudulently obtained and filled in with a false statement of a large deposit of grain in the warehouse, by the person procuring the blank receipt, who sold the same to the purchaser, through an agent, who had notice that the receipt was signed after the agent signing it had ended his employment in the warehouse, must suffer the loss, and cannot throw it upon the warehouse, under the maxim embodied in section 3543 of the Civil Code.

Id.—Support op Finding—Conflicting Evidence.—Where there is some evidence to sustain a finding that the agent of the purchaser had notice of the want of authority to sign the warehouse receipt, the finding will not be disturbed upon appeal, though there is conflicting evidence to the contrary, in view of which the finding might well have been to the contrary.

Id.—Evidence—Notice—Cessation of Agent’s Employment—Absence op Wheat.—In an action by the purchaser of the spurious warehouse receipt against the owners of the warehouse, their former agent having testified that prior to the purchase of the receipt, he gave notice to the agent of the plaintiff of the fact and date of his discharge, it was competent for defendants to show by him when his employment ceased, and that, on that date, no such lot of grain as that described in the receipt was in the warehouse, and that he subsequently told plaintiff’s agent that there was something wrong about that receipt. It was also competent to show by him the circumstances under which he signed the receipt im blank, and that the body of it was filled in by another person.

CHIPMAN, C. Defendants owned a warehouse at Bonda, near Woodland, and received grain on storage; issuing warehouse receipts therefor. Plaintiff purchased a receipt calling for six hundred and forty sacks of wheat, which defendants claimed was forged and refused to deliver the wheat described in it upon demand of plaintiff. This ac-ion is to recover the sum of seven hundred and sixty-five dollars and five cents, paid by plaintiff as the value of this wheat. The trial was by the court and defendants had judgment, from which and from an order denying motion for new trial tills appeal is prosecuted.

The court found that defendants were engaged in receiving grain on storage in the year 1895 up to August 6 of that year; Frank Gasteiger was defendants’ agent in charge of their warehouse, and was authorized to issue warehouse receipts in the name of defendants for storage of grain; Bobert Eethercott was plaintiff’s agent, and authorized to buy wheat for plaintiff; Gasteiger ceased to receive grain in storage on August 6th, and defendants settled with and discharged him, after which time he had no authority to act for defendants in any capacity. On August 14th Gasteiger was working at baling hay eight miles from Bonda for other employers; on that day one H. Burk took to Gasteiger a warehouse receipt theretofore made out by Gasteiger to one Emma C. Laugenour, which Burk represented Was incorrect, and requested Gasteiger to sign a warehouse receipt in blank in the usual way and he, Burk, would take the Laugenour receipt and the blank receipt thus signed to one Watkins, the agent of Mrs. Laugenour, and have him fill the blanks in the receipt; Gasteiger complied with Burk’s request and gave him the blank receipt signed in the name of defendants by Gasteiger; Watkins was not in any way the agent of defendants; Burk pre[623]sented the receipt to Nethercott filled out as of date August 13th and so as to show that he, Burk, had six hundred and forty sacks of wheat on storage in defendants’ warehouse, and Nethercott purchased the receipt and paid Burk the sum stated; subsequently plaintiff presented the receipt to defendants and demanded the wheat, which was refused. Finding 10 is that Gasteiger was discharged from defendants’ employment on August 6th, and thereafter had no authority to act as their agent; and that on August 7th, the day following his discharge, Gasteiger saw and had a conversation with Nethercott in Woodland, “during which conversation he informed said Nethercott that he was no longer in defendant’s employ; that he was paid up and discharged the day previous, and was then looking for a job. He? also informed the said Nethercott that defendants had taken in all the wheat intended for storage during said year in said warehouse and had no further use for an agent or weigher at their warehouse.” Finding 11 is to the effect that on August 19th Gasteiger again met Nethercott at Woodland and Nethercott told Gasteiger he had bought Burk’s wheat in defendant’s warehouse, whereupon Gasteiger told Nethercott there was no such wheat there, and that Burk had left no wheat there. Defendants knew nothing of the existence of this receipt until after Nethercott had bought it.

McNear v. Bourn

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief