Stoddard Mfg. Co v. Adams
| Citation | 122 Ga. 802,50 S.E. 915 |
| Parties | STODDARD MFG. CO. v. ADAMS. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1905 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
SALE—ACTION FOR PRICE—PLEA.
In an action upon a contract for the purchase of goods, a plea is demurrable which alleges that the contract contained an item which the defendant did not order; that he signed the contract without reading it, relying on the statement of the plaintiff's agent, in whose veracity and honesty he had confidence on account of a long course of previous dealings, that the contract contained only the items agreed en; that he signed the contract at a time when he was busy; and that it was contained in a booklet covering 10 or 12 printed pages.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Elbert County; H. M. Holden, Judge.
Action by the Stoddard Manufacturing Company against W. W. Adams. Judgment
for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
The Stoddard Manufacturing Company sued Adams on an account for the value of a disc drill. The defendant filed a plea which contained substantially the following allegations: The contract or order for the drill was obtained from him by the fraud and misrepresentations of the plaintiffs agent, Dix. The contract was in the form of a booklet containing several pages of printed matter, as well as blank spaces for the description of the goods. Dix came to the defendant's place of business, and solicited an order for certain goods. They agreed upon the articles which the defendant should purchase, and Dix took the order blank to fill it out, while the defendant, being busy, went to work in his blacksmith shop. After some time defendant went into the office where Dix was, and asked him if he had filled out the contract according to their previous agreement as to the items, and Dix assured the defendant that the order contained only the items and articles previously agreed on. The defendant had confidence in the agent's honesty and veracity, having dealt with him for a number of years, and because of this confidence and of the fact that the contract covered 10 or 12 pages of printed matter did not read it, but relied on the agent's statements. The defendant did not agree to buy the disc drill, and the order for the same was inserted in the contract by the fraud of the agent. The plaintiff moved to strike this plea on the ground that it set forth no valid defense to the suit. The court overruled this motion, and exception was taken pendente lite. After the introduction of evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff sued out a bill of exceptions, assigning error upon this judgment and other rulings made during the progress of the trial, including the ruling complained of in the exceptions pendente lite.
Z. B. Rogers, for plaintiff in error.
C. P.Harris, for defendant in error.
It is settled by numerous decisions of this court that where one signs a contract without reading it he is bound by its terms, unless he shows that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Perry
...before signing has its roots in the rule exemplified in Hill v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 85 Ga. 425, 11 S.E. 874; Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802, 50 S.E. 915; Truitt-Silvey Hat Co. v. Callaway & Truitt, 130 Ga. 637(2), 61 S.E. 481; Weaver v. Roberson, 134 Ga. 149, 67 S.E. 662; ......
-
Stewart v. Boykin
...so. Fraud which would relieve a party who can read must be fraud which prevents him from reading.' " quoting from Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802, 803, 50 S.E. 915. The exception to this rule is where the perpetrator of the alleged fraud is a fiduciary of the victim of the alleged f......
-
Tinsley v. Gullet Gin Co
...Georgia Medicine Co. v. Hyman, 117 Ga. 851, 45 S. E. 238; Harrison v. Wilson Lumber Co., 119 Ga. 6, 45 S. E. 730; Stoddard Manufacturing Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802, 50 S. E. 915; Biggers v. Equitable Manufacturing Co., 124 Ga. 1045, 53 S. E. 674; Rounsaville v. Leonard Manufacturing Co., 127......
-
Brown v. Five Points Parking Center
...'in a hurry,' W. P. Brown & Sons Lbr. Co. v. Echols, 200 Ga. 284, 287, 36 S.E.2d 762, or because he was 'too busy.' Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802, 50 S.E. 915. Thus, he is charged with knowledge of the terms which by his conduct he accepted and became bound 3. If the complaint can......