Court Opinion

ID: 9598862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:12:43.412301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:43.033000
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. To me it is clear that the plaintiff knew that he was not doing business with Pacific Mobile Homes, Inc., and that he knew he was doing business with Robert Stewart, and later Bob Henderson. This action is somebody’s afterthought, which has certainly paid off well.
Not only did the consignment form, which the plaintiff received when he delivered his trailer to Robert Stewart, contain no reference to Pacific Mobile Homes, Inc., but the checks he received in payment on his trailer were the personal checks of Bob Henderson. It was only after he finally located, in the penitentiary, the man who had defrauded him and realized that there was no balm in Gilead there, that the idea that Pacific Homes, Inc., ought to share its wealth with him, was evolved.
I will assume with the majority that the evidence warranted a finding that Pacific Mobile Homes had clothed Stewart, and later Henderson, with apparent or ostensible authority to take a trailer for sale on consignment.
Where the plaintiff’s case breaks down, is that there is no evidence to establish that he relied on that apparent or ostensible authority. Instead it establishes that he at all times believed he was dealing with Stewart or Henderson. For more than a year, he ignored Pacific Mobile Homes, Inc. —all the time transacting business at the same locations, all *353the time readily available — and instead devoted his time and energies to locating Henderson.
For this hiatus in proof, I would set aside the judgment and dismiss the action.