Where a land owner sued his brokers, who had effected a sale, to recover a portion of the purchase money which had been retained by them, on the ground that the contract was not binding on him, because he had been fraudulently induced to enter into it by the act of the defendants in not correctly reading the contract to him, and also on the ground that the contract had been qualified by the alteration thereof by defendants, an instruction, that if plaintiff signed the original contract, defendants in reading it to him having fraudulently deceived him, then the contract was not binding, was not erroneous, on the theory that the action was not one for the cancellation of a contract. Id.