Williams v. Leisen

• Decision Date: 12 June 1905
• Citation: 60 A. 1096,72 N.J.L. 410
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. LEISEN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

60 A. 1096

72 N.J.L. 410

WILLIAMS

v. LEISEN.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 12, 1905.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court of New Brunswick.

Action by Lewis A. Williams, trading as the Publishing Society of New Jersey, against John N. Leisen. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued February term, 1905, before GARRISON, SWATZE, and DIXON, JJ.

Prout & Prout, for appellant Alfred S. March, for appellee.

DIXON, J. To recover the price of books sold and delivered, the plaintiff sued on the following writing signed by the defendant, and, according to the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff, read and understood by the defendant, namely:

"$18.00. January 7, 1904. In order to aid the publication of a History of the State of New Jersey entitled 'New Jersey as a Colony and as a State' I hereby authorize The Publishing Society of New Jersey to enter my subscription for one copy of the same for which 1 agree to pay to them or to their order the sum of eighteen dollars upon delivery of the work to me at my residence or place of business, the work to be published in four volumes and bound in buckram.

"It will be delivered to subscribers as soon as convenient after publication.

"Name. John N. Leisen.

"Address. Woodbridge, New Jersey."

The only defense offered was presented by the testimony of the defendant, who swore that Mr. Towne, the plaintiff's agent, came to him and told him about the work, and told him he just wanted to get some influential citizen to indorse the same; that the defendant did not read the slip, but signed his name to indorse the work to other citizens, and that he was in a hurry; and that Mr. Towne did not tell him that he was signing a contract for the book. The question is whether this evidence warranted the submission of the matter to the jury, in the face of a request that the court direct a verdict for the plaintiff. The case differs substantially from Alexander v. Brogley and Alexander v. Bedford, 63 N. J. Law, 307, 43 Atl. 888, where, through fraud of the agent, the defendants were led to believe that they were writing their names on blank paper for purposes which involved no duty whatever on their part to examine the paper. In the present case the statement said to have been made by the agent notified the defendant that he was about signing a document which directly involved the duty of examination. The statement did not of itself indicate with any degree of precision the nature of...