Roth v. Schaaf

MUSSELL, J. This is an action on a promissory note executed by Chester Loyd Schaaf, now deceased. The note is dated April 20, 1954, and provides for the payment to plaintiff, Forrest M. Roth, of the sum of $3,000 on or before September 30, 1954. The note was for money advanced to Schaaf by plaintiff. It was signed by Chester Schaaf and by defendant Ruby Faye Schaaf, by Chester Schaaf, under the authority of a general power of attorney executed by her on February 27, 1954. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the note, together with attorney’s fees and costs, and the defendant appeals from the judgment. Her contentions are that her husband, Chester Schaaf, had no authority under his power of attorney to borrow money from plaintiff and to cosign her name to the note without showing that the money borrowed was for her use and benefit and that plaintiff should have had knowledge that the money borrowed was for the use and benefit of defendant before he could hold her liable.

On April 20, 1954, defendant and her husband were living together as man and wife and came to Dinuba on a vacation trip to visit his mother. At about 8 a. m. on April 20, 1954, Schaaf told his wife he was going over to Huron to see the plaintiff, whom he had not seen for a long time. He arrived at Huron about noon and visited for about 45 minutes with plaintiff and his wife, who operated a tavern, bar and card-room. Schaaf then left, returned at about 8 p. m. and told plaintiff that he needed $3,000; that “if he didn’t have $3,000, that they were going to lose their ranch and that he never even had any grocery money. He was broke, in other words.” When plaintiff asked him how long he would need [664]the money, Sehaaf stated he had his ranch np for sale, that he figured five or six months would be sufficient time, and the note would be paid off then. Plaintiff thought the matter over and then talked with his wife about it, after which he told Schaaf he could not lend him the money without his wife’s signature. Schaaf then produced a written general power of attorney, dated February 27, 1954, recorded March 1, 1954, which, by its terms, authorized Sehaaf to sign and execute in his wife’s name, notes, receipts and evidences of debt. Sehaaf stated that the reason he had the power of attorney “was to come down and borrow some money.” Plaintiff examined the document and “didn’t see anything wrong with it.” He then agreed to lend Sehaaf $3,000 and sent for a blank note which Sehaaf then signed for both himself and his wife. Plaintiff then paid Sehaaf $3,000 in cash and Schaaf left the place.