Judgment was therefore entered for defendants and plaintiff appealed to the California District Court of Appeals. The District Court of California in that case entitled Wilson v. Bramblett, 151 Cal.App.2d 369, 311 P.2d 22 (1957), said: "Many of the several defenses made by respondents and found by the court as to why the note was unenforceable against these defendants appear to be tenable. Without discussing them, we conclude that respondents' liability on the original note and copy thereof sued upon was conditional, depending upon the signature of Bramblett or ratification by the individuals signing and was not duly executed and delivered, within the meaning of that term.
Thus on another ground the instruments never became binding obligations of the union. ( Wilson v. Bramblett, 151 Cal.App.2d 369 [ 311 P.2d 22].) Considering Doria's position with the union, his activities, his familiarity with the constitution and laws and his conduct with Heaton, it would be difficult to argue that he did not take the risk in accepting the notes, the $25,000 and transfer of the car ( Ernst v. Searle, 218 Cal. 233 [ 22 P.2d 715]); and if, according to his contention he thought he was dealing with Heaton as the board's agent, he not only took that risk but it was incumbent upon him to "inquire as to the extent of his [agent's] authority."