Hurst v. Hazel Hurst Foundation for the Blind, Inc.

DRAPEAU, J. For many years Hazel Hurst was president and a member of the board of directors of Hazel Hurst Foundation for the Blind, Inc., a California charitable corporation. The foundation trained seeing-eye dogs and blind persons for whom the dogs were obtained. The idea behind the foundation was Hazel Hurst’s. She organized the corporation. She was active in promoting and advertising its work, and in securing donations for its purposes. The affairs of the corporation were administered by its board of directors.

On May 22, 1951, Hazel Hurst terminated her relations with the foundation. There had been dissension between her and the board of directors, culminating in her retirement. Before that for a time she was not active in the management because of disagreement with the board. When that board retired from management her husband (whom she later divorced) then became president and a member of the board. When he retired from the presidency Hazel Hurst again took over until her final retirement.

The complaint in this case was by Hazel Hurst to collect a promissory note for $10,500, alleged to have been made, executed, and delivered by the foundation to her. Defendant foundation denied any liability under the note, and cross-complained for an accounting, and for several items of indebtedness claimed due it by plaintiff.

The trial court found against defendant on the cross-complaint, and for the plaintiff on the note. Judgment for plaintiff followed for the amount of the note, together with interest and attorneys’ fees. Defendant appeals from the judgment.

After filing the notice of appeal defendant moved in the superior court to vacate and set aside the judgment for the reasons specified in section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also for alleged extrinsic fraud.

These motions were denied for the reason, as stated by the court, that under the provisions of section 946 of the Code of Civil Procedure it lacked jurisdiction to entertain them. Defendant appeals from each of these orders.

So far as the promissory note is concerned, the solution of this problem is easy. The record discloses positive evi[688]denee for the plaintiff that supports the findings and the judgment. The directors authorized the note. It was formally delivered to plaintiff. And she testified it was for moneys previously advanced by her to defendant.