Case Name: W. B. LOUNT and HATTIE L. MOSHER, Copartners Doing Business as S. D. LOUNT & SON, Appellants, v. THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHOENIX, a Corporation, Appellee
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1914-05-16
Citations: 16 Ariz. 34
Docket Number: Civil No. 1338
Parties: W. B. LOUNT and HATTIE L. MOSHER, Copartners Doing Business as S. D. LOUNT & SON, Appellants, v. THE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHOENIX, a Corporation, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
[Civil No. 1338.
Filed May 16, 1914.]
[140 Pac. 819.]
W. B. LOUNT and HATTIE L. MOSHER, Copartners Doing Business as S. D. LOUNT & SON, Appellants, v. THE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHOENIX, a Corporation, Appellee.
1. Subscriptions—Fraud.-—-Where the execution of a subscription contract is induced by a fraudulent representation of fact, the contract is not binding on the subscriber, but the fraud must relate to the-subject matter of the contract.
2. Evidence—Parol Evidence—Subscription Contracts—Conditions. One who in writing subscribes to a fund to provide a building and site for a Y. M. C. A. in consideration of subscriptions of'others, provided a specified sum-is subscribed, is bound on his subscription on the performance of the specified condition, and he cannot, by parol, show other conditions.
[As to supplementing subscription contract -by proof of collateral oral agreement, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914A, 458.]
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Prank 0. Smith, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs, Armstrong & Lewis and Messrs. Alexander & Christy, for Appellants.
'Messrs. Kibbey, Bennett & Bennett and Mr. Barnett E. Marks, for Appellee.

Opinion:
CUNNINGHAM, J.
The pleadings and the contract sued upon are, in all essential particulars, the same as appear in the case of Hurley v. Young Men's Christian Assn., ante, p. 26, 140 Pac. 816, just decided, and the rules of law therein recognized control this cause, also.
The judgment is affirmed.
FRANKLIN, C. J., and ROSS, J., concur.