HOUSEHOLD FINANCE COMPANY v. Shamley

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE COMPANY v. Shamley

140 A.2d 183, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 300

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1958

Docket2140

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 A.2d 183 (HOUSEHOLD FINANCE COMPANY v. Shamley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE COMPANY v. Shamley, 140 A.2d 183, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 300 (D.C. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, the operator of an automobile involved in a collision, sued appellants for personal injuries and the jury awarded her damages of $375. This appeal raises the question of whether the court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. Appellants offered in evidence a release executed by appellee and two checks totaling $75 cashed by her which they contend barred recovery. Appellee testified that the release was obtained from her by fraud and misrepresentation shortly after the collision; that appellants’ agent who prepared the release told her that it covered property damage only, and that the question of personal injuries was left pending. The adjuster who obtained the release was present at trial but was not called as a witness for appellants.

Appellants’ position is that the appellee’s evidence was insufficient to establish fraud which would vitiate the release. The general rule is that a release may be avoided where it is obtained as the result of a misrepresentation with respect to the nature or extent of the claim covered by it, and where the failure of the releasor to become informed as to the exact nature of the release before he signed it is not attributable to his negligence. 1 A careful review of appellee’s uncontradicted, testimony has convinced us that it was sufficient to raise jury questions on all these-points, and thus the judge acted correctly in denying appellants’ motion.

Affirmed.

1

. Annotation, 164 A.L.R. 402.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, the operator of an automobile involved in a collision, sued appellants for personal injuries and the jury awarded her damages of $375. This appeal raises the question of whether the court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. Appellants offered in evidence a release executed by appellee and two checks totaling $75 cashed by her which they contend barred recovery. Appellee testified that the release was obtained from her by fraud and misrepresentation shortly after the collision; that appellants’ agent who prepared the release told her that it covered property damage only, and that the question of personal injuries was left pending. The adjuster who obtained the release was present at trial but was not called as a witness for appellants.

Appellants’ position is that the appellee’s evidence was insufficient to establish fraud which would vitiate the release. The general rule is that a release may be avoided where it is obtained as the result of a misrepresentation with respect to the nature or extent of the claim covered by it, and where the failure of the releasor to become informed as to the exact nature of the release before he signed it is not attributable to his negligence. 1 A careful review of appellee’s uncontradicted, testimony has convinced us that it was sufficient to raise jury questions on all these-points, and thus the judge acted correctly in denying appellants’ motion.

Affirmed.

1

. Annotation, 164 A.L.R. 402.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.2d 183, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/household-finance-company-v-shamley-dc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack