Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1915-11-19
fraud IS NOT PROTECTED
VERBAL MISREPRESENTAT
CONTRACT, SAYS COURT

| st. Cloud Journal-Press: A
carefully worded contract even
though it states that verbal represen-
| tations Of an agent are not to be con-
sidered a part of the agreement does
not protect the company whose agents
resort to fraud in obtaining the sig-
nature of purchaser to that contract.
This important decision was handed
down yesterday by the supreme court
in the case of Edward Thompson Co.,
against Peter F. Schroeder, ori iginally
tried before Judge Roeser in Becker
county.
Schroeder is an attorney at Detroit
and the Edward Thompson company
print and sell law books. A smooth
agent with splendid command or the
English language and a hearty hand
shake walked into Schroeder's office a
year ago and after closing the door
and making sure that no one was with
in earshot confded to him that his COM
pany mad decided to honor the attorney
by allowing him to be the only one in
Becker county to buy a set of law
books that had just been issued. On
that representation Schroeder put his
name on the dotted line Of a carefully
! drawn up contract that precluded all
verbal agreements and made it subject
to acceptance by the eastern company.
When the books came Schroeder dis
covered that two other attorneys in
| Detroit had been made the same offer
| and had both purchased the books. He
refused to pay and so notified the COM
pany. In return he received what
l.would be considered highly insolent
letter calling attention to the wording
of the contract. Schroeder stood pat
and in due time Attorney Taylor Crum
of Fargo, started suit for the company.
The case was tried at the March term
of the district court, the jury after be-
ing out for nearly two days returning
a three-fourths verdict in favor of
| Schroeder.
The company appealed to the SUI
preme court contend1ng that the con-
| tract had been drawn so that no such
action could be brought.
The question Of allowing evidence
to be submitted regarding any conver-
sation with the agent in view of the
fact that the contract was so binding
was the one on which the appeal was
made. Judge Roestr held that fraud
could not be concealed under any
cloak and that if there was the slight
! est evidence of misrepresent', that
the jury had the right to examine all
OF the circumstances. This was up
held by the supreme court.
The supreme court held as follows:
Edward Thompson Co., appellant, VS..
Peter Schroeder, respondent.
| l. Evidence held to sustain the right
Of defendant 20 rescind contract for
the purchase of certain law books on
the ground of fraudulent representa-
tions Of plaintiff f s. $ agent, made to in:
duce defendant to enter into the con-
tract.
2. A clause in a written contract in
the language, "no representations or
guarantees have been made by your
salesman which are not herein express
ed,' does not preclude or stop the
other contracting party from showing
that the contract was procured by the
fraudulent representations.
3. When fraudu]ently procured con-
tract pecuniary obligation is thereby
incurred by the defendant party, such
incurred obligation is sufficient dam
age or prejudice to entitle him to re-
scind the contract for the fraud
| Order affirmed.
Opinion by Chief Justice Brown.