McCuskey v. Budnick
| Decision Date | 21 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 34708,34708 |
| Citation | 165 Ohio St. 533,138 N.E.2d 386 |
| Parties | , 60 O.O. 493 McCUSKEY, Appellee, v. BUDNICK, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Davis & Young, Cleveland, for appellant.
Alfred L. Steuer and Richard B. Steuer, Cleveland, for appellee.
As disclosed by the bill of exceptions, plaintiff admitted signing the two papers at the garage at the request of a garage attendant, alleged to be defendant's representative. The paper titled 'Certificate of Satisfaction' purports to release defendant, upon payment of the sum stated, of all claims for damage to plaintiff's automobile caused by defendant and states that the automobile has been completely repaired to plaintiff's satisfaction. The paper titled 'Release in Full of All Claims' contains across the top thereof the word, 'Release,' in large bold-face type and to the left of plaintiff's signature, in large boxed-in boldface type, the words, 'This is a Release in Full.' It is a release of all claims by reason of damage, loss or injury sustained by plaintiff as the result of the collision.
With reference to his conversation with the garage attendant at the time he signed the papers, plaintiff testified as follows:
'Q. And when you went in there, did you have a conversation with the man who had your car? A. * * * I said, 'I have got to get my car and that is the only way I have got to get to work.' I told him that in the first place and regardless what it would have been, whether it would have been a receipt or a release or whatever it was, I would have had to sign it because I had to go to work.
* * *
* * *
'A. * * * He said, 'Sign right here.' I didn't pay no attention to nothing.
* * *
* * *
Plaintiff's own testimony shows clearly that defendant was not at the place where the certificate of satisfaction and the release were signed, and at the time of the signing plaintiff was told that if he paid the repair bill in money he could have his automobile without signing any papers. The record does not disclose whether the garage attendant was acting for his employer, the garage owner, or for defendant in demanding either the money or the signing of the certificate and release. The fact that the attendant demanded either the payment of money or the signing of the release, so payment would be made by the insurer, before surrendering possession of the automobile tends to prove that the attendant was acting in the interest of his employer rather than that of defendant. There is no evidence that the attendant attempted to prevent plaintiff from reading the release before he signed it.
Facts constituting fraud in the factum are not pleaded, and there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shallenberger v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.
...Steel Corp., 1943, 142 Ohio St. 145, 50 N.E.2d 319; Perry v. M. O'Neil & Co., 1908, 78 Ohio St. 200, 85 N.E. 41; McCuskey v. Budnick, 1956, 165 Ohio St. 533, 138 N.E.2d 386. Hence, there will ordinarily be an absence of the damage essential to existence in the plaintiff of any cause of acti......
-
Boyd v. Allied Home Mortg. Capital Corp.
...164, 98 N.E.2d 301, 304, reversed on other grounds (1952), 342 U.S. 359, 72 S.Ct. 312, 96 L.Ed. 398; McCuskey v. Budnick (1956), 165 Ohio St. 533, 535, 60 O.O. 493, 494, 138 N.E.2d 386, 388. Haller, 50 Ohio St.3d at 14, 552 N.E.2d As noted above, Plaintiffs could have reviewed the documents......
-
Simmerman v. Ocwen Fin. & Mortg. Servs., Inc. (In re Simmerman)
...1219 (Ct.Com.Pl.1993) (involving an employer's claim of misrepresentation in a collective bargaining agreement), McCuskey v. Budnick, 165 Ohio St. 533, 138 N.E.2d 386 (1956) (involving a claim of fraudulent inducement to sign a release), and Stonecreek Properties Ltd. v. Ravenna Savings Ban......
-
W.K. v. Farrell
...44 O.O. 162, 98 N.E.2d 301, reversed on other grounds (1952), 342 U.S. 359, 72 S.Ct. 312, 96 L.Ed. 398; McCuskey v. Budnick (1956), 165 Ohio St. 533, 535, 60 O.O. 493, 138 N.E.2d 386. If a person can read and is not prevented from reading what he signs, then he alone is responsible for his ......