Price v. Connors

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
• Citation: Price v. Connors, 146 F. 503 (9th Cir. 1906)
• Decision Date: 18 June 1906
• Docket Number: 1,215.
• Parties: PRICE et al. v. CONNORS.

146 F. 503

PRICE et al. v. CONNORS.

No. 1,215.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 18, 1906

Ira D Orton, Albert Fink, W. H. Metson, J. C. Campbell, and F. C Drew, for plaintiffs in error.

L. H Brewer, F. L. Morgan, Ben Sheeks, Geo. D. Schofield, and Albert H. Elliot, for defendant in error.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

This case is brought here by writ of error to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Second Division. The action was for damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of a gunshot wound, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendants to the action, after putting in issue the allegations of the complaint, set up as an affirmative defense in their answer that the plaintiff, for and in consideration of the sum of $500 paid to him by them, had released and discharged them from all liability for the alleged cause of action. The plaintiff replied to that affirmative defense, and in his reply alleged that if such release, discharge, and satisfaction was in existence, the instrument was obtained by the defendants collusively acting together for the purpose of cheating and defrauding the plaintiff out of his rights, and by then and there taking advantage of the plaintiff while he was intoxicated to such an extent as to be wholly unfit for the transaction of any business. On the trial the defendants introduced in evidence a written release executed and acknowledged by the plaintiff to the effect stated in their answer. The plaintiff denied all knowledge of the execution of the release. In respect to the question of the release, the evidence was conflicting, but he himself testified on the trial that Hoxsie, who represented the defendant in the negotiations approached him twice. 'He sent for me,' said the witness, 'first on the 13th (of October). The second time, when he offered me the $500, I went up and told Mr. Schofield (plaintiff's attorney). I went right away, I guess. I think I went and seen him and told him the same day this proposition was made to me to settle for $500. I told him I had been offered $500 to settle the case, and from that time I don't believe I saw Mr. Schofield again until I went out.'

The court below instructed the jury, among other things:

'That if a person who has been injured by the willful, wanton, or negligent act of another is fraudulently induced to sign a release for the damages sustained, such release will not operate as a bar to the prosecution for damages to recover for such injuries; and, in this case, if you believe from the evidence that the written release offered in evidence by the defendant was signed by the plaintiff at a time when he was not in a condition to understand what he was doing, then such release would not be binding upon the plaintiff, and would constitute no defense against the cause of action set forth in the complaint. And it would be

...