Case Name: J. A. Holmes, Appellee, v. John C. Baker, Appellant
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1905-11-17
Citations: 129 Iowa 49
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. A. Holmes, Appellee, v. John C. Baker, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
J. A. Holmes, Appellee, v. John C. Baker, Appellant.
Pleadings fraud in procuring signature. A pleading charging fraud in procuring a signature to an instrument which fails to allege, either that the párty could not read the paper himself or that by some subterfuge he was prevented from reading it, or that it was misread to him, or that the writing was materially changed, is demurrable.
Appeal from Clinton District Court. — ■ Hon. A. P. Barker, Judge.
Friday, November 17, 1905.
Action at law upon a .promissory note. Plaintiff’s demurrer to answer sustained, and defendant appeals.—
Affirmed.
F. L. H. oiler am, for appellant.
Skinner & Coe, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant undertook to plead fraud in obtaining the note sued upon. His allegations were, in substance, that plaintiff procured his signature to the note by representing it to be an " application for a prospectus of an insurance policy," which plaintiff represented did not render him liable to pay any money until he had received the prospectus or sample policy, and notified the plaintiff that he was satisfied therewith and would accept the proposed insurance. He further pleaded that he relied upon plaintiff's construction of the agreement, and was thereby deceived and defrauded. He nowhere alleges that he could not read the paper for himself or that plaintiff by any device or subterfuge prevented him from reading it for himself, or that plaintiff misread it to him, or that said writing has in any manner been materially changed. We think the demurrer was properly sustained. Wallace v. R. R., 67 Iowa, 547; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414. Thé answer does not present a case for application of the rule upheld in Sutton v. Griebel, 118 Iowa, 78, and.other cases cited by appellant.
The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.