If the party defrauded could read, has a chance to read, and omits to read the instrument relying on the adversary party's statement of its contents, the instrument should on principle be treated as void, as between the parties thereto, since it should be no defense for the party who is guilty of the fraud to say that the other party was negligent in believing him. The majority of the courts take this view of such cases and hold such contract void, in spite of the negligence of the defrauded party.1 If one party assumes to reduce an oral agreement to writing, the other party who signs such contract without reading it, in reliance on such state-

8 Bliss v. R. R., 160 Mass. 447, 39 Am. St. Rep. 504, 36 N. E. 65. See for similar facts Och v. Ry., 130 Mo. 27, 36 L. R. A. 442, 31 S. W. 962; Perry v. O'Neil, 78 O. S. 200, 85 N. E. 41.

1 Oliphant v. Liversidge, 142 111. 160, 30 N. E. 334; James v. Dalbey, 107 la. 463, 78 N. W. 51 [citing McCormack v. Molburg, 43 la. 561; McKinney v. Her-rick, 66 la. 414, 23 N. W. 767; Roundy v. Kent. 75 la. 662, 37 N. W. 146; Jenkins v. Coal Co., 82 la. 618, 48 N. W. 970; Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. Caldwell, 94 la. 584, 63 N. W. 336; Reid, etc., Co. v. Bradley, 105 la. 220, 74 N. W. 896].

2 See Sec. 321.

3 Terry v. Ins. Co, 116 Ala. 242, 22 So. 532. Even though such attorneys tell assignor that it is the release that he had agreed to sign he can not allege fraud where he omits to read the instrument.

4 Smith v. Mosbarger, 18 Ariz. 19,156 Ac. 79.

5 J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Dyches, 108 S. Car. 411, 94 S. E. 1051.

.6 J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. v. Dyches, 108 S. Oar. 411, 94 S. E. 1051.

1 England. Carlisle & Cumberland Bkg. Co. v. Bragg (1911), 1 K. B. 489, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 472, 104 L. T. N. S. 121.

United States. American Fine Art Co. ▼. Reeves Pulley Co., 127 Fed. 808, 62 C. C. A. 488; Mardis v. Miller, 241 Fed. 470, 154 C. C. a. 302.

Alabama. Davis v. Snider, 70 Ala. 315; Foster v, Johnson, 70 Ala. 249; Gannon v. Lindsey, 85 Ala. 198, 7 Am. St. Rep. 38, 3 So. 676; Beck, etc., Co. v. Houppert, 104 Ala. 503, 53 Am. St Rep. 77, 10 So. 522; Bank v. Webb, 108 Ala. 132, 19 So. 14; Tillis v. Austin, 117 Ala. 262, 22 So. 975; Bates v. Harte, 124 Ala. 427, 82 Am. St. Rep. 186, 26 So. 898 (obiter); Gillespie v. Hester, 160 Ala. 444, 49 So. 580; Prestwood v. Cartton, 162 Ala. 327,50 So. 254; Moline Jewelry Co. v. Crew, 171 Ala. 415, 55 So. 144; Commercial Finance Co. v. Cooper Bros., 196 Ala. 285, 71 So. 684; Herzfeld v. Hayne, - Ala. - , 76 So. 973; Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, - Ala. - , 78 So. 902.

California. Wenzel v. Shulz, 78 Cal. 221, 20 Ac. 404.

Colorado. Colorado Investment Loan Co. v. Beuchat, 48 Colo. 494, 111 Ac. 61.

District of Colombia. Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. McLean, 40 D. C. App. 465; Stern v. Monyweight Scale Co., 42 D. C. App. 162.

Georgia. Brooks v. Matthews, 78 Ga. 739, 3 S. E. 627.

Indiana. Givan v. Masterson, 152 Ind. 127, 51 N. E. 237.

Iowa. Heiteman v. Windahl, 125 la. 207, 100 N. W. 1118; Bonewell v. Jacob-son, 130 la. 170, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 436, 106 N. W. 614; Wickham v. Evans, 133 la. 552, 110 N. W. 1046.

Kansas. Shook v. Puritan Mfg. Co.,

75 Kan. 301, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043. 89 Ac. 653; St. Louis Jewelry Co. v. Bennett, 75 Kan. 743, 90 Ac. 246; St. Louis Jewelry Co. v. Baird, 75 Kan. 837, 90 Ac. 782; Disney v. St. Louis Jewelry Co., 76 Kan. 145, 90 Ac. 782; Tanton v. Martin, 80 Kan. 22, 101 Ac. 461.

Kentucky. Western Mfg. Co. v. Cotton, 126 Ky. 749, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 427, 104 S. W. 758; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Crutcher, 135 Ky. 381, 122 S. W. 191; New Bell Jellico Coal Co. v. Oxendine, 155 Ky. 840, 160 S. W. 737.

Maine. Great Northern Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 113 Me. 51, 92 Atl. 993; Bixler v. Wright, 116 Me. 133, L. R. A. 1917F, 633, 100 Atl. 467.

Maryland. Wilson v. Pritchett, 99 Md. 583, 58 Atl. 360.

Massachusetts. Freedley v. French, 154 Mass. 339, 28 N. E. 272; Whiting v. Price, 172 Mass. 240, 70 Am. St Rep. 262, 51 N. E. 1084.

Michigan. Anderson v. Walter, 94 Mich. 113; First National Bank v. Deal, 55 Mich. 592, 22 N. W. 53; Boston Piano & Music Co. v. Pontiac Clothing Co., 199 Mich. 141, 165 N. W. 856.

Minnesota. Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 150, 10 L. R. A. 606, 47 N. W. 448; Eggleston v. Advance Thresher Co., 96 Minn. 241, 104 N. W. 891; Minneapolis Brewing Co. v. Grathen, 111 Minn. 265, 126 N. W. 827; Providence Jewelry Co. v. Crowe, 119 Minn. 209, 129 N. W. 224.

Nebraska. Cole Bros. v. Williams, 12 Neb. 440, 11 N. W. 875; Story v. Gam-mell, 68 Neb. 709, 94 N. W. 982.

New Jersey. Alexander v. Brogley,

62 N. J. L. 584, 41 Atl. 691 [affirmed,

63 N. J. L. 307, 43 Atl. 888]; Lloyd v. Hulich, 69 N. J. Eq. 784, 115 Am. St. Rep. 624, 63 Atl. 616; Dunston Lithoment of the adversary party, may avoid such contract.2 One who signs an instrument which purports to be a receipt, but which really contains contractual terms, upon the representation of adversary party that such instrument is merely a receipt, is not guilty of negligence.3 A release which is signed in reliance upon the false statement that it is a receipt for the funeral expenses of a minor child of the party who executes it, and which is signed by one who is unable to read or write English, who is prostrated by grief at the death of such child, and who is at the time under the influence of intoxicating liquor, is invalid.4 If A and B enter into a contract by which A is to deliver goods to B, and B is to sell graph Co. v. Borgo, 84 N. J. L. 623, 87 Atl. 334; McDonald v. Central R. Co., 89 N. J. L. 251, 98 Atl. 391.

New Mexico. Vermont Farm Machine Co. v. Ash, - N. M. - , 170 Ac. 741.

New York. Smith v. Smith, 134 N. Y. 62, 30 Am. St. Rep. 617, 31 N. E. 258.

North Carolina. Taylor v. Edmunds, - N. Car. - , 97 S. E. 42.

Oklahoma. Robinson v. Roberts, 20 Okla. 787, 95 Ac. 246; McDonald v. McKinney Nursery Co., 44 Okla. 62, 143 Ac. 191.

Rhode Island. Weil v. Quidnick Mfg. Co., 33 R. I. 58, 80 Atl. 447.

South Carolina. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Devlin, 85 S. Car. 128, 67 S. E. 149.

South Dakota. Smith v. Kimble, 31 S. D. 18, 139 N. W. 348; Herreid v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul' Ry., 38 S. D. 68, 159 N. W. 1064.

Vermont. Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 82 Vt. 416, 74 Atl. 99.

Washington. Loveland v. Jenkins-Boys Co., 49 Wash. 369, 95 Ac. 490.

West Virginia. Hale v. Hale, 62 W. Va. 609. 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 221, 59 S. E. 1056; Acme Food Co. v. Older, 64 W. Va. 255, 61 S. E. 235.

Wisconsin. Lotter v. Knospe, 144 Wis. 426, 129 N. W. 614.

"If one intentionally misrepresents to another, facts particularly within his own knowledge, with an intent that the other shall act upon them, and he does so act, he can not afterwards excuse himself by saying, 'You were foolish to believe me.' It does not lie in his mouth to say that the one trusting him was negligent": Eastern Trust & Banking Co. v. Cunningham, 103 Me. 455, 70 Atl. 17 [quoted in Bixler v. Wright, 116 Me. 133, L. R. A. 1917F, 633, 100 Atl. 467].

"A party guilty of fraudulent conduct shall not be allowed to cry 'negligence' as against his own deliberate fraud": Linington v. Strong, 107 111. 295.

2 United States. Mardis v. Milter, 241 Fed. 470. 154 C. C. A. 302.

Alabama. Herzfeld v. Hayne, - Ala. - , 76 So. 973; Adams Hardware Co. v. Wimbish, - Ala. - , 78 So. 902.

Maine. Bixler v. Wright, 116 Me. 133, L. R. A. 1917F, 633, 100 Atl. 467.

Michigan. Boston Piano & Music Co. v. Pontiac Clothing Co., 199 Mich. 141, 165 N. W. 856.

New Mexico. Vermont Farm Machine Co. v. Ash, - N. M. - , 170 Ac. 741.

Rhode Island. Weil v. Quidnick Mfg. Co., 33 R. I. 58, 80 Atl. 447.

3 Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. McLean, 40 D. C. App. 465; Lotter v. Knospe, 144 Wis. 426, 129 N. W. 614.

4 Erickson v. Northwest Paper Co., 95 Minn. 356, 104 N. W. 291.

them on commission,5 or B is to keep them and pay for them if they can be resold after fair trial,6 and A fraudulently draws a written contract so as to make it an ordinary contract of sale, B may avoid such contract, even if he was negligent in omitting to read it. If A induces B to enter into a written contract to buy certain fruit trees by representing that this was a so-called "orchard contract," by which payment for such trees was to be made by delivering to the vendor the crop of the fourth year as payment, and such contract is one of ordinary sale, B may avoid such contract.7 If, under an oral order for a small sample quantity, the vendee's agent writes out an order for several hundred dollars' worth of goods in such form that the total price can not be estimated and the vendee signs such written order, not knowing the large quantity thus ordered, the vendee is not bound.8 If A enters into an oral agreement for transportation on a freight train, and the ticket agent gives him a ticket for such transportation, but not a permit to ride upon the freight train, which the rules of the company require, A may recover damages if he is expelled from such train.9 A, who held a note of the X corporation, agreed to renew it if the directors of such corporation would become person-ally liable upon the renewal of the note; and he prepared and forwarded a note drawn so as to impose such liability. The directors executed such note so as to incur no personal liability, and returned it to A. A without noticing that such note was not executed in accordance with the terms of the contract, surrendered the original note. It was held that by reason of such mistake, the contract for the renewal was not valid.10 One whose life or health is insured may recover on an insurance policy, although he has signed an application which states that he has not suffered from any disease in the past year, if the agent of the insurance company knows the fact as to the health of the insured and induces the insured to sign such application without reading it.11 If a party to a written contract relied upon the statements of the agent of the adversary party as to the contents thereof, the fact that the contract contained a notification to "Read this," and that it contained a provision, "I have read this contract, have had delivered to me by your salesman a copy of same, and this is all of the contract between us," does not prevent the party who was misled as to the terms from repudiating such contract if it was not shown that this provision was read to him.12

5 Shook v. Puritan Mfg. Co., 75 Kan. 301, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043, 89 Ac. 663; Bixler v. Wright, 116 Me. 133, L. R. A. 1917F, 633, 100 Atl. 467.

6 Western Mfg. Co. v. Cotton, 126 Ky. 740, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 427, 104 S. W. 758.

7 Bonewell v. Jacobson, 130 la. 170, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 436, 106 N. W. 614.

8 Weil v. Mfg. Co., 33 R. I. 58, 80 Atl. 447.

9 Olson v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.. 49 Wash. 626, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 209. 06 Ac. 150.

10 Frazier v. State Bank, 101 Ark. 135, 141 S. W. 941.

11 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Howell (Ky.), 107 S. W. 294.