Burroughs v. Pacific Guano Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1887
• Citation: 1 So. 212,81 Ala. 255
• Parties: BURROUGHS v. PACIFIC GUANO CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

1 So. 212

81 Ala. 255

BURROUGHS v. PACIFIC GUANO CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 12, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Tuscaloosa county.

Action on promissory note.

This action was brought upon a promissory note, for 14 sacks of soluble Pacific guano. Said note contained in the body thereof the following clause: "The undersigned, having been for years acquainted with the commercial value of the said fertilizer, purchases same upon his own judgment, and without warranty of vendor, and with all faults at purchaser's risk, the sellers making no representations as to value, except as indicated by the minimum analysis branded on each sack." The defendant for answer to the complaint pleaded that, before the purchase of said guano by him, the defendant represented to him that it was fresh and dry; that these representations were material, and were relied on by him; and that, relying upon them, he entered into the contract; but that the same were false, etc. The plaintiff replied to the plea, and set up the clause in the note heretofore set out as an estoppel against defendant's plea. The defendant demurred to the replication, which latter the court below sustained. The evidence was conflicting, tending, on the one hand, to show that defendant did not read the note, nor see the guano before he purchased same; and, on the other part, that he did read the note, and see the guano before the purchase, and that no misrepresentations were made him, as alleged, or otherwise. The court charged the jury: "If the defendant had an opportunity to read the note, upon which the suit was founded, before its execution, and failed to do so, he was estopped from setting up any misrepresentations the plaintiff might have made, if he made any, as to its nature and contents, in avoidance of its obligations." And also "If the defendant had an opportunity to examine the guano, for which the note was given, before its delivery to him, and failed to do so, he was estopped from setting up, as a defense in this action, any misrepresentations the plaintiff made, if he made such, as to the freshness and dryness of the guano."

Hargrove & Van de Grafft and H. B. Foster for appellant.

Wood & Wood, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

Where a person signs an instrument without reading it, or, if he cannot read, without asking to have it read to him, the legal effect of the signature cannot be avoided by showing his ignorance of its contents, in the absence of some fraud deceit, or misrepresentation having been practiced upon him. But the rule is otherwise, and the instrument will be held void, where its execution is obtained by a misrepresentation of its contents,-the party signing a paper which he did not know he was signing, and did not really intend to sign. It is immaterial, in the latter aspect of the case, that the party signing had an opportunity to read the paper; for he may have been prevented from doing so by the very fact that he trusted to the truth of the representation made by the other party with whom he was dealing. Goetter v. Pickett, 61 Ala. 387; Dawson v. Burrus, 73 Ala. 111; Foster v. Johnson, 70 Ala. 251; Davis v. Snider, Id. 317; Johnson v. Cook, 73 Ala. 537. What the rule would be in a case where the instrument sued on is commercial paper, the plaintiff being a bona fide holder for value before maturity, and the defendant has been guilty of negligence in signing it before delivery, we do not now decide. Abbott v. Rose, 16 Amer. Rep. 427; Chapman v. Rose, 15 Amer. Rep. 401, and cases ci...