Carson v. Vinding

MOORE, P. J. The question for decision is whether the findings are supported by the evidence.

The court found that defendant, doing business as Pacific War Surplus, had employed appellant to work primarily at his Huntington Park store, with incidental duties at Ms similar establishment in Bell Gardens; that about September 1, 1952, he authorized Ms agent to complete two checks, previously signed, and deliver them to appellant, which order was obeyed. Both checks are payable to the order of appellant in the sums of $4,450 and $1,500 and respectively dated August 5 and August 12, 1952; but respondent received no consideration for the checks; appellant knew at all times that respondent did not have sufficient funds to pay the checks on presentment; when the check for $4,450 was presented, payment was refused for lack of funds; defendant is not indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $6,679.15, but he owes plaintiff only $353.08 with interest from September 20, 1952; no moneys are owing defendant by plaintiff by reason of the latter’s employment for any period; plaintiff has no property of defendant. During July and August, 1952, defendant was not of unsound mind; neither was he wholly or absolutely incompetent to understand the nature of his transactions, nor was he incapable of making a contract, and plaintiff knew such facts. That plaintiff has been fully paid for all services rendered to defendant and for all money advanced to or on behalf of defendant, but defendant still owes plaintiff the said $353.08.

The Evidence

Although the finding is that respondent was not incompetent at the time the two checks were delivered to appellant, yet he was not a well man. His resistance was low and he was an easy prey to suggestion. In December, 1951, he suffered a skull fracture, a brain injury and the loss of an eye. He was confined to the psychopathic ward of the general hospital for 28 days in August and September, 1952, and thereafter for two months in a state hospital for the insane. During respondent’s stay at the general hospital, appellant caused the issuance of the two checks to himself. Although they had been signed in blank, for them to have commercial value, they required the name of “C. Y. Carson ’ ’ inserted as payee and the amounts of each to be inserted. Appellant visited respondent in the “acute section” of the psychopathic ward and there procured respondent to instruct the latter’s bookkeeper to fill in the checks. Pursuant to the instruction, the [654]bookkeeper supplied the omissions in the checks and delivered them to appellant who was then operating respondent’s business. The latter had been called upon to pay other checks that had been dishonored.