Alexander v. Ferguson

Decision Date11 June 1906
Citation73 N.J.L. 479,63 A. 998
PartiesALEXANDER et al. v. FERGUSON.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court, Camden County.

Action by William W. Alexander and others against Benjamin B. Ferguson. Verdict for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued February term, 1906, before GARRISON, GARRETSON, and SWAYZE, JJ.

Thomas B. Hall, for appellant Wilson, Carr & Stackhouse, for respondents.

SWAYZE, J. The defendants signed a written contract for the purchase of merchandise of the plaintiffs, which was delivered to, and received by, the defendant The price has not been paid. At the trial, the defendant proved that the plaintiff's agent represented that the paper was an agreement to act as agent and depository for the plaintiffs, and that the defendant signed it without reading other than the first few lines. These lines did not contain the contract to purchase. The trial judge directed a verdict for the plaintiffs.

It is contended that the case is governed by the decision in Alexander v. Brogley, 63 N. J. Law, 307, 43 Atl. 888, rather than by the decision in Williams v. Leisen (N. J. Sup.) 60 Atl. 1096. We think the trial judge was right In Alexander v. Brogley "the defendants did not know they were signing contracts, and therefore were not called upon to exercise that vigilance which such a transaction reasonably demands." Here the defendant knew he was signing a contract of some kind, and the representation of the plaintiffs' agent, although not a full and complete statement of the contents of the paper, was true as far as it went and the evidence fails to show any concealment of the rest of the document The defendant was notified that he was signing a document which would amount to a contract and was given the opportunity to know its exact terms. He chose to sign without a full examination and, as in Williams v. Leisen, must be held bound to the contract as he made it. By the terms of the contract the plaintiffs authorized the defendant to guaranty the goods to give satisfaction and agree to return the cost price or furnish new goods; and at the trial the defendant proved that before the execution of the written contract, the plaintiffs' agent agreed to furnish certain forms of contract to be supplied to purchasers of the goods, and to do certain advertising. The failure to carry out this oral agreement of the agent is urged as a defense. The written contract, however, cannot be varied by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Holly Sugar Corporation v. Fritzler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 16, 1931
    ......737-738;. Davidson v. Nalley Land & Inv. Co., (Ga.) 146 S.E. 559-560; Railway Co. v. Bellwith, (8th Cir.) 83 F. 437; Alexander, et al. v. Ferguson, (N. J.) 63 A. 998; Walter Pratt & Co. v. Metzger, (Ark.) 95 S.W. 451-452; Austin v. Brooklyn Co., (Mo.) 285 S.W. ......
  • The Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company, a Corp. v. Huncovsky
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 19, 1923
    ......12 R. C. L. 386; Standard Mfg. Co. v. Slot, 121 Wis. 14, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1016, 98 N.W. 923; Alexander v. Ferguson,. 73 N.J.L. 479, 63 A. 998. . .          It does. not necessarily follow, however, that the defendant is. precluded from ......
  • Gabriel v. Glickman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • January 28, 1947
    ...supposed only a recommendation was in view. * * *. We think a verdict for the plaintiff should have been directed.’ In Alexander v. Ferguson, 73 N.J.L. 479, 63 A. 998, the defendants entered into a written contract for the sale of merchandise. They attempted to prove the agent fraudulently ......
  • Christie v. Lalor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • November 12, 1935
    ...had ability and opportunity to read." Williams v. Leisen, 72 N. J. Law, 410, 60 A. 1096, 1097; Alexander v. Ferguson, 73 N. J Law, 479, 63 A. 998; Hegedus v. Thomas Iron Co., 94 N. J. Law, 292, 110 A. 822: In Williams v. Leisen, supra, Mr. Justice Dixon observed that "the defendant's testim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT