Cameron v. Estabrooks

• Decision Date: 12 February 1901
• Citation: 50 A. 638,73 Vt. 73
• Parties: CAMERON v. ESTABROOKS.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

50 A. 638

73 Vt. 73

CAMERON

v. ESTABROOKS.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Caledonia.

Feb. 12, 1901.

Exceptions from Caledonia county court; Taft, Chief Judge.

Action by Walter Cameron against Henry Estabrooks. Heard upon the report of an auditor and exceptions thereto. The exceptions were overruled, and Judgment rendered for plaintiff, and defendant excepted. Affirmed.

Argued before TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, and STAFFORD, JJ.

H. A. Farnham and Porter & Thompson, for plaintiff.

Marshall Montgomery, for defendant.

START, J. The action is book account The only item on the debtor side of the plaintiff's account is for 40 days' service at $20 a mouth. The defendant, by crediting this item in his specifications under his plea in offset, in effect conceded that the debtor side of the plaintiff's account was correct; and the same was properly allowed by the auditor. The defendant claimed before the auditor that he had paid the sum of $16 for the board of the plaintiff, and that this item should be allowed to him under his plea in offset. In support of this claim the defendant offered in evidence a writing signed by the plaintiff which is in the following words and figures: "St Johnsbury, Vt. May 16, 1898. $20.00. I have this day commenced work for H. F. Estabrooks at rate of $20 per month, less board, until I get used to the business, or until we make a new contract." The plaintiff admitted that he signed this contract, but claimed that he was induced to do so by reason of the defendant's incorrectly reading it to him. On this point the plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the contract was written by the defendant late in the evening, and banded to him (the plaintiff): that he was unable to read it, and handed it back to the defendant and asked him to read it; that the defendant pretended to do so, but, instead of reading it as it was written, he read that the plaintiff was to receive $20 and his board; and that he did not read the words "until I get used to the business." To the admission of this evidence the defendant excepted, and, as we construe the exceptions to the report, the admissibility of this evidence is the only question reserved for consideration.

This evidence was properly received and considered by the auditor upon the question whether the plaintiff's signature to the contract was obtained by fraud. If the plaintiff's signature was thus obtained, it was such fraud in the execution of the instrument as would enable the plaintiff to...