Democrat-Herald Publishing Co. v. Pettit

OGDEN, J., pro tem. This is an action in claim and delivery for the recovery of a printing press purchased by respondent J. de Menezes from the defendant Pettit. Pettit, under the name of the Pacific Printing Machinery Company, [744]was, at the time, engaged in the city of San Francisco in the business of buying, repairing and reselling new and rebuilt printing machinery. Representing to de Menezes that the press in question had been received by him in an exchange, Pettit sold and delivered the press to him at the latter’s printing establishment in the city of Oakland where it has ever since been in use. Respondent de Menezes purchased the machinery in good faith in the ordinary course of business and paid the full purchase price of twenty-two hundred dollars therefor. Pettit had, in fact, received the press from appellant, a corporation having its place of business in the state of Oregon, upon a conditional sale agreement, reserving title in the latter until full payment of the purchase price. Upon receipt of the press and before its sale to de Menezes, Pettit disguised the press by removing the serial number therefrom and repainting it. After selling the press to de Menezes, Pettit disappeared, retaining the full purchase price and failing to account to appellant for the amount due under his conditional sale agreement.

This appeal is taken from judgment rendered in favor of respondent de Menezes upon a retrial of the cause after reversal upon appeal of a judgment in favor of appellant. (See Democrat-Herald Pub. Co. v. Pettit, 94 Cal. App. 724 [271 Pac. 910].) The evidence received in the second trial discloses substantially the same set of facts as in the first trial and which formed the basis of that decision. Although, upon the retrial of the issues, the officer of appellant corporation who negotiated with Pettit for the conditional sale of the press to' him did testify through his deposition that he neither knew nor had any information that Pettit was engaged in the buying and selling of printing machinery, the finding of the trial court to the contrary is supported by the evidence. Upon the first trial the same witness testified that he had had prior negotiations with Pettit for the sale to him of a different press, had seen advertisements of the Pacific Machinery Company in a trade journal and admitted that he did have such knowledge of the character of Pettit’s business. As part of the negotiations between the witness and Pettit, the latter sent him a telegram reading as follows: “Will you supply bill of sale on Huber [745]