Walker v. Freedman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Freedman

114 N.Y.S. 51

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 N.Y.S. 51 (Walker v. Freedman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Freedman, 114 N.Y.S. 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The writing, which evidenced a renewal of a lease for a year, was sought by the defendant to be attacked for fraud and deceit in accordance with the averments of a defense duly pleaded; the ground of the defense being that the plaintiff procured the defendant’s execution of the renewal through an intentional misrepresentation that the paper expressed a monthly hiring, upon which statement the defendant relied. All evidence properly offered in support of this defense was excluded, for the reason, as the record would indicate, that, since the defendant could read, any transactions leading up to the signing of the agreement were incompetent. This defense of fraud was available to the party in the Municipal Court (Pelgram v. Ehrensweig, 51 Misc. Rep. 31, 99 N. Y. Supp. 913), and his ability to read what he signed did not conclude his right to assert his reliance upon the truth of representations, fraudulent in fact, whereby he was induced to sign the paper without mastering its contents (Wilcox v. Am. T. & T. Co., 176 N. Y. 115, 68 N. E. 153, 98 Am. St. Rep. 650).

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The writing, which evidenced a renewal of a lease for a year, was sought by the defendant to be attacked for fraud and deceit in accordance with the averments of a defense duly pleaded; the ground of the defense being that the plaintiff procured the defendant’s execution of the renewal through an intentional misrepresentation that the paper expressed a monthly hiring, upon which statement the defendant relied. All evidence properly offered in support of this defense was excluded, for the reason, as the record would indicate, that, since the defendant could read, any transactions leading up to the signing of the agreement were incompetent. This defense of fraud was available to the party in the Municipal Court (Pelgram v. Ehrensweig, 51 Misc. Rep. 31, 99 N. Y. Supp. 913), and his ability to read what he signed did not conclude his right to assert his reliance upon the truth of representations, fraudulent in fact, whereby he was induced to sign the paper without mastering its contents (Wilcox v. Am. T. & T. Co., 176 N. Y. 115, 68 N. E. 153, 98 Am. St. Rep. 650).

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.Y.S. 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-freedman-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack