Case ID: kan_104/html/0210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dawson, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 21,896.
    The Gale Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. W. J. King and J. W. Dickey, Partners, etc., Appellees.
    
    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
    Sale Contract — Procured by Fraudulent Representations — Defenses. Rule followed that one who has signed a written instrument may successfully defend against it by clear, decided and satisfactory evidence that he was induced to sign it by false and fraudulent representations as to its contents, and that, having neither time nor opportunity to read it, he signed it in reliance upon those representations.
    Appeal from Sumner district court; Oliver P. Fuller, judge.
    Opinion filed February 8, 1919.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      James Lawr erice, of Wellington, and C. T. Atkinson,_ of Arkansas City, for the appellant.
    
      James A. McDermott, and Harold W. Herrick, both of Win-field, for the appellees.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

The plaintiff sued the defendants upon a written contract for the price of a “Spalding Deep Tilling Machine” — some new contrivance for cultivating corn. The defense was fraudulent representations as to contents of the contract and want of opportunity to read it, and consequent reliance upon plaintiff’s false representations as to its contents.

That such a defense may be maintained, if supported by clear, decided, and satisfactory evidence (Fritts v. Reidel, 101 Kan. 68, 71, 165 Pac. 671), is settled law in this state. (Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 73 Kan. 567, 85 Pac. 597; Tanton v. Martin, 80 Kan. 22, and citations at p. 24, 101 Pac. 461; see, also, Greisa v. Thomas, 99 Kan. 335, 161 Pac. 670.)

The evidence for defendants met these requirements; the record discloses no error; and the judgment is affirmed.