Gardner v. Johnson

• Citation: 210 N.W. 295,236 Mich. 258
• Decision Date: 04 October 1926
• Docket Number: June Term.,No. 80,80
• Parties: GARDNER v. JOHNSON et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

236 Mich. 258

210 N.W. 295

GARDNER

v.JOHNSON et al.

No. 80, June Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 4, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, Ionia County; Royal A. Hawley, Judge.

Action by Emma Gardner against Albin Johnson and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench. N. O. Griswold and Isabella R. Ganton, both of Greenville, and Arthur J. Butler, of Big Rapids, for appellant.

Penny & Worcester, of Cadillac, for appellees.

CLARK, J.

Plaintiff owned a number of foxes at the ranch of Remus Silver Black Fox Company and was indebted thereto for feeding in the sum of $450. On September 2, 1924, she signed what is called an option to defendants by which she agreed to accept ‘$2,000 in land contracts for her young pair of foxes and their litter of four male pups.’

On October 3, 1924, she signed an agreement to sell to defendants for $1,900, to include payment of the bill for feeding ‘one pair, pen No. 29, and 4 pups, in pen No. 17 1/2, of silver black foxes.’ Later and on the same day, she signed and gave to defendants an order, directed to the fox ranch, as follows:

‘Please turn over to Johnson & Jenkins Company one pair of old foxes in pen 29 and four pups in pen No. 17 1/2.’

Defendants got the six foxes and paid plaintiff as agreed. Later, she brought this tort action averring that she sold but four foxes and that the other two had been obtained by fraud. When plaintiff rested, a verdict was directed for defendants and judgment entered. Plaintiff brings error.

The price paid for the six foxes was within the range of testimony of value adduced by plaintiff. There was testimony of value somewhat higher than the price, but the disparity is not so great as to be gross or shocking and of itself to constitute evidence of fraud.

She signed all three papers. She was possessed of her faculties. She could read, might have done so, but did not read before signing, nor were the papers read to her. There is no testimony of procuring her signatures by trick, or artifice, no testimony of any act of fraud. Plaintiff says, simply, ‘I sold but four foxes,’ and from this it is argued that, as the papers call for six foxes, an issue of fraud is made. If that be the rule, where is the advantage of putting agreements in writing? Plaintiff's evidence, without more, did not make a case of fraud.

‘As a general rule, a person cannot avoid a written contract into which he has entered, on the ground that he did not attend to its terms, that he did not read the document which he signed, that he supposed it was different in its terms, or that it was a mere form.’ 13 C. J. 370.

See 6 R. C. L. 624; Sanborn v. Sanborn, 104 Mich. 180, 62 N. W. 371.

Plaintiff relies on Shrimpton v. Netzorg, 104 Mich. 225, 62 N. W....