Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Schroeder

• Decision Date: 30 October 1900
• Citation: 84 N.W. 14,108 Wis. 109
• Parties: DOWAGIAC MFG. CO. v. SCHROEDER.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

108 Wis. 109

84 N.W. 14

DOWAGIAC MFG. CO.

v.SCHROEDER.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 30, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Brown county; Samuel D. Hastings, Jr., Judge.

Action on a contract by the Dowagiac Manufacturing Company against Charles Schroeder. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action for the recovery of the purchase price of two grain drills sold by the plaintiff to the defendant by a written contract of sale. The defense relied upon was that the defendant was induced to sign the contract by fraudulent representations as to its contents. The plaintiff's evidence showed the execution of the contract by both parties, the delivery of the drills as provided for by the terms of the contract, and the fact of nonpayment. The defendant's evidence concerning the alleged fraud in the procuring of the contract will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, but the court, on motion, set the same aside, and entered judgment for the plaintiff for the purchase price of the drills, for the reason that no defense had been proven; and from this judgment the defendant appeals.Feeney & Atwood, for appellant.

Ellis & Merrill and T. P. Silverwood, for respondent.

WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).

It was shown that the defendant purchased the grain drills in question by a written contract, and the only defense attempted to be made, or which the evidence tends to establish, was that the defendant was induced to sign the contract of purchase by means of fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff's agent as to the contents of the contract. The principle of law is that, if it be claimed and satisfactorily proven that a party signed a note or contract relying upon facts and fraudulent representations as to its true character, and was guilty of no negligence in failing to ascertain what the contract really was, he is not bound by it. Bowers v. Thomas, 62 Wis. 480, 22 N. W. 710, and cases cited. The evidence in the case before us entirely fails to meet this test. The defendant was a German of considerable business experience. He had been in the business of selling farm machinery 14 years. He claims he could not read English, but admits on cross-examination that he could read enough to tell what the meaning of the contract was; and the proof was overwhelming, by his own admissions, that he could read business papers. He could write his...