Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-13
COURT DECISIONS.
DInEsTED BY w. B. MARTIN. \
Exclusively for yirginian-Pi iot)
Notes ofCases Recently decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
]. ROUTE v. DA1NGERF1Er.D.

- cebhQoA Lei LOW.
"a PERSON INDUCED BY FRAUD TO
~ MAKE A CONTRACT MUST, AS
SOON AS HE LEARNS THE
TRUTH USE ALL REASONABLE
DILIGENCE TO DISAFFIRM IT.
IF He TREATS IT AS BINDING
HE WAVES HIS RIGHT TO RE
LIEF
HIS ELECTION TO AVOID IT OR
TREAT 1T AS VALID MAY BE
SHOWN BY ACTS AS WELL. AS
BY WORDS. AND HIS ELECTION
is FINAL.
This was suit to set aside CON
tract upon the ground that the plain
tiff was induced to make it by mis-
representation and fraud. The case
appears from the opinion of the court.
The court says:
Ii 1t were proved that Daingerfleld,
In buying the interest of William B.
Nouzie. had made not merely q bad
bargain, but had been induced to make
the purchase by false and fraudulent
representations. he would be barred by
MS conduct OF the relief he seeks, for
the law Is well settled that a person
who Is induced by fraud to enter
into a contract with another, in
tends to repudinte it, he must as soon
as he learns the truth use all reason
able diligence to disanlrm It. If after
discovering the falsity of the represen-
tations by which he was mislead he
treat the contract rs still snhsiding and
binding, he thereby valves all benefit
of relief from the misrepresentations.
Whenever party to n voidable con-
tract has the right TO elect whether he
VIII avoid 1t or treat 1t as still subsid-
ing, hts election may be manifested by
acts as welLas words. And If he elects,
upon the discovery of the fraud. to
affirm the contract his election Is final
and conclusive. File cannot afterwards
disaffirm 1t. but must abide by the de-
cision he has made.
In the case before us, the evidence
is conclusive that Daingcrfeld. after
learning. according to his sworn testi-
mony, that the liabilities OF the firm
OF r. B. Rouzie & Co.. were greater and
the assets less than he charges that
they were represented to him, elected
to treat the contract of purchase as
still subsisting and binding. He made
no offer to rescind IT, upon the dis
coyery OF the alleged fraud. nor COM
planned to William d. Rouzie OF any
deception. but retained the interest in
the firm which he had bought, and, to-
Gether with the other partner r. B.
Rouzie, held possession of the stock of
goods and continued to carry on the
business; OF merchandising, thereby
rendering himself less able day by day
to restore what he has received under
his contract of purchase. IL he intended
to disafilrm It, until, by the deed of as
signment to secure their creditors. they
had parted with the entire assets OF the
firm. Reversed
PENN TOBACCO co. v. LEHMAN
Supreme Court Of Georgia, December
Z, 1899.
< A WAIVER OF PROCESS CURES
IT'S ABSENCE, OR INREGULAR-
ITY.
AN ALLEGATION THAT THE LET
TIERS 20. X" WRITTEN ON AN
ORDER FOR GOODS AND SIGNED
CONSTITUTED a CONTRACT BY
THE SIGNER TO PAY FOR THE
GOODS, IF THE PERSONS SEND
ING THE ORDER DID NOT DO so
SETS FORTH A-G66B= CAUSE or
ACTION. THESE LETTERS Be
ING AMBIGUOUS MAY BE EX
PLANNED BY PAROL EVIDENCE.
The points decided appear from the
opinion of the court.
The court says:
The plaintiff sued the defendants.
alleging in it's petition that petitioner
received from George D. Mashburn &
Co., merchants OF Hawkinsville. Ga, a
written order for 20 boxes of tobacco
to be sent to them. the price of which
@. l.. 4,
accepted and the goods shipped, the
defendants guaranteed to, petitioner
the payment at maturity of the bill for
the tobacco so ordered; that"upon this
guaranty Of said (defendants) said to-
bacco was by your petitioner forwarded
to, and received by, said Mashburn e
Z Co.; that the guaranty was
guaranty above referred to; that the
guaranty referred to was both oral and
In writing. the written part being OK
pressed, by the letters 20. H." followed
by the signature of the defendants
\ upon the order above referred TO; that
the agreed meaning of the letters, with
the signature of the defendants was
that they thereby became RESPONSIVE
Tor the order in case Mashburn & Co
ialled TO pay the same at maturity:
mat the Dill and order are now past
que and both Mashburn & Co, and the
defendants have failed and refused to
pay the same. The defendant demur-
red. The demurrer was sustained. and
plaintiff excepted.
AS there was an acknowledgment of
service and waiver of process. 1t was
not necessary that any process should
be issued. and therefore there was no
merit in the objection that the process
actually issued was irregular.
The contract ra1fad an ~,
tiff, evidenced by the letters 30. Kn
= and the sin,lllaa of