Volandri v. Hlobil
| Decision Date | 26 May 1959 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Maud O. VOLANDRI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J. S. J. HLOBIL, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 18320. |
Royal M. Galvin, Walter R. Baranger, Beverly Hills, Hugh C. Calaway, San Francisco, for appellant.
Joseph L. Alioto, Walter F. Calcagno, San Francisco, for respondent.
Defendant, J. S. J. Hlobil, appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff-payee in an action on a promissory note signed by defendant and one T. O. Toon. He argues on appeal that: 1) the facts do not support the trial court's finding that the defense of forgery was not available; and 2) no recovery can be had on a forged signature under the Negotiable Instrument Law, as such recovery is against public policy.
The undisputed facts are as follows: In July 1955, defendant Hlobil was the owner of a 50% interest in a certain patent which he claimed was being infringed by Boeing Aircraft Corporation under contract with the U. S. Air Force. By a letter dated July 20, 1955, defendant Hlobil gave T. O. Toon complete authority to act as his agent to negotiate a settlement claim with officials of the U. S. Government. Defendant did not have sufficient funds for the expenses of negotiating such settlement. Defendant in writing authorized Toon to sell up to 7% of his interest in the infringement claim. The proceeds of such sales were to be used to pay Toon's expenses in attempting to settle the claim. On July 26, 1955, plaintiff Maud Volandri gave to Toon $3,000 in return for a contract assigning to her 3% of Hlobil's interest in the claim, and the following promissory note:
July 26, 1955
'$3,000.00
'One year after date, without grace we promise to pay to the order of M. O. Volandri Three Thousand Dollars For value received with interest from date at the rate of 5% per cent per annum until paid principal and interest payable in lawful money of the United States at 2427 Larkin Street, San Francisco, California and in case suit is instituted to collect this note or any portion there we promise to pay such additional sum as the Court may adjudge reasonable as Attorneys fees in said suit.
'No.
'S/ T. O. Toon
'S/ J. S. J. Hlobil
Due July 26, 1956'
The signature of defendant Hlobil on this note was unknown to the plaintiff, executed by T. O. Toon and not the defendant Hlobil. The $3,000 obtained by Toon from the plaintiff was used to pay various expenses in an attempted settlement of the infringement claim.
Plaintiff sought payment of the note from Toon, on July 26, 1956, the due date. When this failed, plaintiff, on January 8, 1957, January 23, 1957 and February 4, 1957, wrote to the defendant, stating she held a promissory note signed by him and demanding payment. Defendant Hlobil replied to these letters and asked plaintiff to be patient while the final settlement was concluded. In his replies, defendant did not deny that he had executed the promissory note. In April 1957, plaintiff called the defendant on the telephone and asked that the note be paid. Again, defendant did not deny his execution of the instrument. On May 7, 1957, defendant again wrote to the plaintiff and asked her to be patient. Defendant orally and in writing acknowledged that plaintiff owned a 3% interest in his infringement claim. In the summer of 1957, plaintiff learned from her attorney that defendant had denied execution of the note. This action was filed on September 17, 1957.
Defendant's first argument on appeal is that the evidence does not support the judgment, as it was impossible for him to ratify Toon's act of signing the note with his name, since he did not have full knowledge of the transaction. However, plaintiff's letters were clear and unequivocal and on receipt of the first letter, defendant knew that the plaintiff held a note purporting to have been signed by him, and that he had not, in fact, signed such a note. Defendant found out about the note from Toon after plaintiff's first letter, and never denied execution to the plaintiff in his subsequent correspondence. Defendant failed to make further inquiries of the plaintiff and Toon, and in his further correspondence with the plaintiff asked her to be patient.
Defendant orally and in writing acknowledged that the plaintiff owned a 3% interest in his claim, solely because she had given $3,000 to Toon. The agreement giving plaintiff the 3% interest referred to the note. The note is a part of the agreement which defendant ratified. Ratification of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Vries v. Mendes
...740, 268 P. 934 (assault and battery); Jameson v. Gavett, 22 Cal.App.2d 646, 71 P.2d 937 (assault and battery); Volandri v. Hlobil, 170 Cal.App.2d 656, 339 P.2d 218 (forgery). In Sullivan v. People's Ice Corp., 92 Cal.App. 740, 745, 268 P. 934, 936, the court said, 'Defendant avers that the......
-
Navrides v. Zurich Ins. Co.
...70 Cal.App.2d 776, 783, 161 P.2d 689); that a principal may ratify the forgery of his signature by his agent (Volandri v. Hlobil (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 656, 659--660, 339 P.2d 218; Kadota Fig Ass'n v. Case-Swayne Co. (1946)73 Cal.App.2d 815, 167 P.2d 523); and that a principal may ratify the......
-
In re W.R. Grace & Co.
...Agency § 198 (2006). Courts have held that a principal may ratify the forgery of his signature by an agent. Volandri v. Hlobil, 170 Cal.App.2d 656, 339 P.2d 218 (1st Dist., 1959); Kadota Fig Asso. of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 815, 167 P.2d 523 (3rd Dist., Application of th......
-
Common Wealth Ins. Systems, Inc. v. Kersten
...Cal.Rptr. 57, 500 P.2d 1401; Navrides v. Zurich Ins. Co., 5 Cal.3d 698, 703--704, 97 Cal.Rptr. 309, 488 P.2d 637; Volandri v. Hlobil, 170 Cal.App.2d 656, 659--660, 339 P.2d 218; Kadota Fig Ass'n v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 815, 821, 167 P.2d 523.) However, whether a forged signature w......