If the party who has been induced to execute a written contract by fraudulent representations as to its contents seeks to avoid liability thereunder, it is clear that he has never in fact assented to the contract as written. "Whether the circumstances attending the execution may not under some circumstances estop him from making this defense is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. Some courts make the degree of care exercised by the defrauded party the test as to his liability. Whether such test is to be adopted or not, if the party defrauded is guilty of no negligence,1 as where he is unable to read from illiteracy,2 defective eye-

4 Huber Mfg. Co. v. Piersall, 160 Ky. 307, 150 S. W. 341.

5 Sass v. Thomas, 6 Ind. Ter. 60, 89 S. W. 656.

1 1llinois. Linington v. Strong, 107 111. 295.

Iowa. Shores-Mueller Co. v. Lonning, 159 la. 95, 140 N. W. 197.

Kansas. Gale Mfg. Co. v. King (Kan.), 178 Ac. 621.

Kentucky. Western Mfg. Co. v. Cotton, 126 Ky. 749, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 427, 104 S. W. 758.

Maine. Biddeford National Bank v. Hill, 102 Me. 346,120 Am. St. Rep. 499, 66 Atl. 721.

Minnesota. Shrimpton v. Philbrick, 53 Minn. 366, 55 N. W. 551.

Missouri. Cottrill v. Krum, 100 Mo. 397, 18 Am. St. Rep. 549, 13 S; W. 753.

New York. Albany, etc., Institution V. Burdick, 87 N. Y. 40; Bridger v. Goldsmith, 143 N. Y. 424, 38 N. E. 458.

South Carolina. Baldwin v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 78 S. Car. 419, 59 S. E. 67.

Wisconsin. Bessey v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 154 Wis. 334, 141 N. W. 244.

2 England, Pigot'e Case, 6 Coke 47 (Part XI, 26b); Thoroughgood's Case, 1 Coke 435 (Part II, 5b); Thorough-good's Case, 1 Coke 444 (Part II, 9a).

United States. Frank v. Schnuettgen, 187 Fed. 515.

Arkansas. American Standard Jewelry Co. v. Witherington, 81 Ark. 134, 98 S. W. 695; Alexander v. Dickinson (Ark.), 101 S. W. 739.

California. Wilson v. Moriarty, 77 Cal. 596, 20 Ac. 134, 88 Cal. 207, 26 Ac. 85; Sullivan v. Moorhead, 99 Cal. 157, 33 Ac. 796 [distinguishing Hawkins v. Hawkins, 50 Cal. 558]; Meyer v. Hass, 126 Cal. 560, 58 Ac. 1042 [citing Mullen v. Railroad Co., 127 sight,3 or ignorance of the language in which the instrument is written,4 or if the party who makes the fraudulent representations prevents him from reading the instrument by some trick or artifice,5 as by claiming that the party who is guilty of the fraud will miss his train if the other party stops to read it,6 or by putting terms in very small type,7 or by getting him, while dazed by the

Mass. 86, 34 Am. Rep. 349; Senter v. Senter, 70 Cal. 619, 11 Ac. 782; Chicago, etc., Railway Co. v. Lewie, 109 111. 120; Metropolitan, etc., Association, v. Esche, 75 Cal. 513, 17 Ac. 675].

Georgia. Grimsley v. Singletary, 133 Ga. 56, 65 S. E. 92.

Illinois. Rockford, etc., Ry. Co. v. Shunick, 65 111. 223.

Indiana. Union, etc., Ins. Co. v. Huyck, 5 Ind. App. 474, 32 N. E. 580.

Iowa. Green v. Wilkie, 98 la. 74, 60 Am. St. Rep. 184, 30 L. R. A. 434, 66 N. W. 1046.

Kansas. Winfield National Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 620, 26 Ac. 939.

Kentucky. Sibley v. Holcomb, 104 Ky. 670, 47 S. W. 765.

Minnesota. Schaller v. Borger, 47 Minn. 367, 50 N. W. 247.

Mississippi Campbell v. Doggett (Miss.), 23 So. 371.

Missouri. Vandergrif v. Brock, 89 Mo. App. 411.

Nebraska. Spelts v. Ward (Neb.), 96 N. W. 56.

New Jersey. Becker v. Hardin, 5 N. J. L. 579.

North Carolina. Hayes v. Atlanta & C. Air-Line R. R., 143 N. Car. 125, 55 S. E. 437.

South Carolina. Mason v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 71 S. Car. 150, 50 S. E. 781; Baldwin v. Postal Teltegraph-Cable Co., 78 S. Car. 419, 59 S. E. 67.

Washington. Cradle v. Dodge, 99 Wash. 121, 168 Ac. 986.

West Virginia. Ballouz v. Higgins, 61 W. Va. 68, 56 S. E. 184.

Even if illiterate he can not in some jurisdictions rely on a statement of the legal effect of the contract as distinguished from the reading of it: Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Warten, 113

Ala. 479, 59 Am. St. Rep. 129, 22 So. 288; Hawkins v. Hawkins, 50 Cal. 558.

3 Indiana. Loucks v. Taylor, 23 Ind. App. 245, 55 N..E. 238.

Iowa. Dashiel v. Harshman, 113 la. 283, 85 N. W. 85.

Kansas. Winfield National Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 620, 26 Pac.939.

Kentucky. Stewart v. Roberts (Ky.), 33 Ky. Law Rep. 332, 110 S. W. 340.

Michigan. First National Bank v. Deal, 55 Mich. 592, 22 N. W. 53.

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

California. Meyer v. Haas, 126 Cal. 560, 58 Ac. 1042.

Illinois. R. J. Gunning v. Cusack, 50 111pp. 290.

Minnesota. Adolph v. Ry. Co., 58 Minn. 178, 59 N. W. 959.

Missouri. Beck, etc., Co. v. Obert, 54 Mo. App. 240.

5 Pictorial Review Co. v. FitzGibbon. 163 la. 644, 145 N. W. 315.

6 American Fine Art Co. v. Reeves Pulley Co., 127 Fed. 808, 62 C. C. A. 488; Wood v. Safe, etc., Co., 96 Ga. 120, 22 S. E. 909; McBride v. Publishing Co., 102 Ga. 422, 30 S. E. 999.

Contra: United Breeders' Co. v. Wright, 139 Mo. App. 195, 122 S. W. 1105; White Sewing Machine Co. v. McCarty Furniture Co., - Okla. - , 160 Ac. 495.

7 Keller v. Ins. Co., 28 Ind. 170.

Especially if the contract is so printed in small and confusing type that a promissory note can be left by removing the remaining writen provisions. Stevens v. Venema (Mich), L. R. A. 1918F, 1145, 168 N. W. 531; Stevens v. Pearson, 138 Minn. 72, 163 N. W. 769.

shock of a railroad accident to sign a release of all damages, stating that it was a receipt for a new suit of clothes to replace those torn,8 he instrument is void.