Shook v. The Puritan Manufacturing Company

• Decision Date: 09 March 1907
• Docket Number: 14,803
• Citation: 75 Kan. 301,89 P. 653
• Parties: A. SHOOK v. THE PURITAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Partnership
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

89 P. 653

75 Kan. 301

A. SHOOK v. THE PURITAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Partnership

No. 14,803

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 9, 1907

Decided January, 1907.

Error from Hodgeman district court; CHARLES E. LOBDELL, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

CONTRACTS--Signed without Reading--Execution Induced by Fraud. Where inquiry as to the contents of a written contract is lulled by fraud and deceit, and one party is induced to sign the contract by the false representations of the other that it contains the provisions agreed upon, when in fact it does not, the party who procures the signature by fraud will not be entitled to enforce such contract, although the one who signed it did so without reading it or having it read to him.

F Dumont Smith, for plaintiff in error.

W. S. Kenyon, for defendants in error; J. S. West, of counsel.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

The Puritan Manufacturing Company, a partnership, brought this action against A. Shook to recover $ 324, the price of a lot of jewelry alleged to have been purchased by Shook.

The petition contained a part of the written order for the jewelry signed by Shook, and an averment that the order was accepted and the goods shipped by the company and that by the terms of the order the bill became due and payable within fifteen days, but that payment had been refused.

In addition to a general denial, Shook alleged in his answer:

"That he signed the pretended contract set up in plaintiffs' petition, but that his signature thereto was procured by the fraud and misrepresentation of the plaintiffs' agent, one Lightner; that the said plaintiffs through their agent agreed to ship this defendant a consignment of jewelry, to be sold by defendant on commission; that this defendant never agreed to purchase or ever did purchase said jewelry or any jewelry of plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs' agent presented to defendant a printed paper and represented to defendant that it contained their agreement, and was a contract to sell said jewelry on commission; that defendant was not to be liable to plaintiffs for any of said jewelry except such as he might sell on commission.

"That defendant is unable to read without his spectacles, which were not at hand; that it was dark in the room at the time, and plaintiffs' said agent was urging haste, as he had to catch a train, and defendant was very busy at the time; that plaintiffs' said agent represented the contract to be as stated and as they had verbally agreed, and relying upon the statements of plaintiffs' agent and believing the same to be true defendant signed said contract without reading the same.

"That on the day after signing said contract defendant examined the same and found it was not as represented, and immediately wrote to the plaintiffs, canceling said pretended order, stating the facts herein, and refusing to receive or accept said goods.

"That defendant never has accepted or received said goods, and is in nowise liable therefor."

A demurrer to this answer was sustained. As Shook did not desire to amend, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount of their claim, and this ruling is assigned as error.

It was contended by the plaintiffs, and apparently held by the court, that Shook, having signed the order, was bound to know what it contained, and the fact that misrepresentations were made by which his signature was obtained did not excuse his failure to read the order nor relieve him from the obligation of the contract closed by the acceptance of the order. Evidently the rule governing a case where a contract is signed in ignorance of its contents and where there is an absence of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation was applied in the determination of this case. Of course a party who recklessly signs a contract without reading it or asking to have it read to him cannot throw off its obligations by the mere assertion or proof that he was ignorant of its character or contents. The law contemplates that all persons will exercise reasonable prudence for their own protection in the business affairs of life, and in the absence of fraud or mistake one who signs or accepts a written contract is presumed to know its character and to assent to its stipulations. A different rule obtains, however, where one party is induced to sign an agreement through the misrepresentation and fraud of another. A person who obtains a signature by fraudulent representations which are material and are relied on by another, to the effect that an instrument expresses a previous agreement of the parties, when in fact it contains a wholly different stipulation, has no right to insist that the victim of his fraud shall be bound, although the latter had the opportunity to read the instrument and discover the fraud but failed to do so. In such a case the signing of the paper without reading it involves more than the negligence of the signer, since the signature itself was procured by the fraud of the other.

"It is immaterial, in the latter aspect of the case, that the party signing had an opportunity to read the paper, for he may have been prevented from doing so by the very fact that he trusted to the truth of the representation made by the other party with whom he was dealing." (Burroughs v. Pacific Guano Co., 81 Ala....