Wilkisius v. Sheehan
Decision Date | 17 January 1927 |
Citation | 155 N.E. 5,258 Mass. 240 |
Parties | WILKISIUS et al. v. SHEEHAN et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Lummus, Judge.
Bill in equity by Katirina Wilkisius and another against Elizabeth Sheehan and others to cancel agreement for exchange of real estate. From final decree for defendants, complainants appeal. Affirmed.F. J. Bagocius, for Boston, for appellants.
M. G. Rogers, of Lowell, for appellees.
The plaintiffs seek by this bill in equity to have canceled an agreement for the exchange of real estate and a note for $6,000 and a mortgage securing the same, executed by the plaintiffs and delivered to the defendants O'Keefe and Sheehan (hereinafter called the defendants), and to have the mortgage discharged; also to have mutual reconveyances of the real estate ordered and for other relief; upon the ground that the plaintiffs were unable to read or write, and that their signatures were obtained by false and fraudulent representations of the defendant, to the effect that the provisions of the written contract were in accordance with a previous oral agreement of the parties and that all other papers in the transaction were executed in accordance with it, while in fact the written contract contained a provision for a note to be given by the plaintiffs and secured by a fourth mortgage on the real estate, and that in the completed transaction such a note and mortgage were executed contrary to the oral agreement of the parties. A receiver for the property was appointed and the suit was referred to a master. No appeal has been taken from the decree overruling exceptions and confirming the report. The final decree, after providing for the application of income received by the receiver and the termination of the receivership, ordered that the bill be dismissed. No question has been raised as to so much of the decree as relates to the receiver. The question presented by the appeal is whether the decree dismissing the bill is justified.
[1] The master found that the plaintiffs, husband and wife, were Lithuanians, neither of them being able to read or write English; that the wife, who held the title to one of the pieces of property, did not speak or understand English, and that the husband had limited ability to speak and understand the language; that in the conversation between the plaintiff and the defendants' agent, at which they orally agreed to exchange properties, a Lithuanian acted as agent of both parties in interpreting; that the plaintiff Romius, who had authority to act or his wife in the transaction, the defendants agent and the interpreter then went to the attorney's office to have the agreement drawn; that the agent stated to the attorney the terms of the verbal agreement, and this statement formed the basis of the contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holly Sugar Corporation v. Fritzler
... ... v. Bellwith, 83 F. 437 (8th Cir.), 6 R ... C. L. 625; Sponseller, et al. v. Kimball, et al., ... (Mich.) 224 N.W. 359-360; Wilkisius, et al. v ... Sheehan, et al., (Mass.) 155 N.E. 5-6; Shulman v ... Moser, (Ill.) 119 N.E. 936-938; Miller v. Walker, ... (Ga.) 97 S.E. 869; ... ...
-
Miller v. Cotter
...fraud, a party's failure to read or understand a contract provision does not free him from its obligations. See Wilkisius v. Sheehan, 258 Mass. 240, 243, 155 N.E. 5 (1927); Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 507 (1868). Similarly, nothing in the terms of the agreement—its "purpose and effect"— ......
-
Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc.
...Zotos, 446 Mass. 489, 845 N.E.2d 322, 333 (2006); Cohen v. Santoianni, 330 Mass. 187, 112 N.E.2d 267, 271 (1953); Wilkisius v. Sheehan, 258 Mass. 240, 155 N.E. 5, 6 (1927); Atlas Shoe Co. v. Bloom, 209 Mass. 563, 95 N.E. 952, 953 (1911); Rice v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 56 Mass. 80, 2 Cush. 80, 87 ......
-
Haufler v. Zotos
...of fraud, one who signs a written agreement is bound by its terms whether he reads and understands it or not." Wilkisius v. Sheehan, 258 Mass. 240, 243, 155 N.E. 5 (1927). The inclusion of the August 30, 1996, date in the escrow agreement may have differed from Graham's May 9 letter to Hauf......