Court Opinion

ID: 9707951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:25:45.594302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:40.469754
License: Public Domain

*705O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). As I understand the limits of appellate review, it is impermissible for the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on controverted issues of fact unless clearly erroneous. I do not purport to do so here.
I do, however, come to a completely different legal conclusion from uncontroverted facts than did the trial judge.
When, as in this case, a principal permits an agent to present to potential customers a business card proclaiming to all and sundry that he, the principal, is a “business counsellor” and that the card bearer is his representative, the principal had better make it his business to know what “counselling” is done, particularly when the counseling results in doing a customer of the principal out of some $15,000.
A faultless principal has no defense against dishonesty, but it does not follow that this accords a principal the right to limitless gullibility. When his employee begins dealing in race horses, lends his principal money, and gives him a check signed by the principal’s customer far in excess of any amount that could possibly accrue for legitimate services rendered, I would hold as a matter of law there was an obligation upon the principal to inform himself of his agent’s doings instanter.
I would vacate the judgment of no cause of action and remand for the taking of testimony as to the amount of the customer’s money the principal received from his dishonest employee and enter judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.
Plaintiff should have costs.