This from

:

http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-OfContracts-4-1/Sec-229-Fraud-In-Execution-Contents-OfWritten-Contract.html

Description This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.

Sec. 229. Fraud In Execution - Contents Of Written Contract
The commonest form of fraud in the factum exists where an instrument in writing is drawn up and signed by one party under a false belief as to its contents, due to the fraud of the adversary party. In such case the contract is generally held to be void.1 A fraudulent 1 Maurmair v. National' Bank of Commerce, - Okla. - , 158 Ac. 349; Yakima Valley Bank v. McAllister, 37 Wash. 566, 107 Am. St. Rep. 823, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1075. 79 Ac. 1119. 2 Yakima Valley Bank v. McAllister, 37 Wash. 566, 107 Am. St. Rep. 823, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1075, 79 Ac. 1119. 3 Maurmair v. National Bank of Commerce, - Okla. - , 158 Ac. 349. 4 Biddeford National Bank v. Hill, 102 Me. 346, 120 Am. St. Rep. 499, 66 Atl. 721. 1 Alabama. Beck, etc, Co. v. Houp-pert, 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; Folmar v. Siler, 132 Ala. 297, 31 So. 719. Arkansas. American Standard Jewelry Co. v. Witherington, 81 Ark. 134, 98 S. W. 695.; Alexander v. Dickinson (Ark.), 101 S. W. 739. California. Moore v. Copp, 119 Cal. 429, 51 Ac. 630. Connecticut. Chestnut Hill Reservoir Co. v. Chase, 14 Conn. 123. Georgia. McBride v. Publishing Co., 102 Ga. 422, 30 S. E. 999. Illinois. Puffer v. Smith, 57 111. 527; Indiana, etc., Ry. v. Fowler, 201 111. 152, 94 Am. St. Rep. 158, 66 N. E. 394 [affirming 103 111. App. 565]; Phelan v. Kuhn, 51 111. App. 644. Indian Territory. Sass v. Thomas, 6 Ind. Ter. 60, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 260, 89 S. W. 656. Indiana. Givan v. Masterson, 152 Ind. 127,51 N. E. 237; Loucks v. Taylor, 23 Ind. App. 245, 55 N. E. 238. 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. Kentucky. Haldeman v. Bank, 44 S. W. 383, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1691; Western Mfg. Co. v. Cotton, 126 Ky. 749, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 427, 104 S. W. 758, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1130; Wiley v. Wiley. 178 Ky. 501, 199 S. W. 47. Maine. Biddeford National Bank v. Hill, 102 Me. 346, 120 Am. St. Rep. 499, 66 Atl. 721. Massachusetts. Trambly v. Ricard, 130 Mass. 259; Whiting v. Price, 172 Mass. 240, 70 Am. St. Rep. 262, 51 N. E. 1084; Larseon v. Metropolitan Stock Exch, 200 Mass. 367, 86 N. E. 940; Connors v. Richards, 230 Mass. 436, 119 N. E. 831. Michigan. McGinn v. Tobey, 62 Mich. 252, 4 Am. St. Rep. 848, 28 N. W. 818, Kranich v. Sherwood, 92 Mich. 397, 52 N. W. 741; Shrimpton v. Netzorg, 104 Mich. 225, 62 N. W. 343.

Minnesota. Eggleston v. Advance Thresher Co., 96 Minn. 241, 104 N. W. 891; Oestreich v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. & Omaha Ry. Co., 140 Minn. 280, 167 N. W. 1632. Nebraska. Bothell v. Miller, 87 Neb. 835, 128 N. W. 628. New Jersey. Alexander v. Brogley, 62 N. J. L. 584, 41 Atl. 691 [affirmed, 63 N. J. L. 307, 43 Atl. 888]. New York. Albany City Savings Inst. v. Burdick, 87 N. Y. 40; 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. Oregon. Interior Warehouse Co. v. Dunn, 80 Or. 528, 157 Ac. 806. Pennsylvania. Clinch, etc., Co. v. Willing, 180 Pa. St. 165. 57 Am. St. Rep. 626, 36 Atl. 737; Pusio v. Salak, - Pa. St. - , 104 Atl. 751. South Carolina, Baldwin v. Postal cian of the company to believe that the injury is much slighter than such physician knows in fact that it is, may be treated as void at law.5 A fraudulent representation that a written contract of sale contains an option to the buyer to return the goods, renders such contractvoid.6 If A induces B to execute a note and mort-gage by representing that B incurs no personal liability thereby, A can not enforce such note against B personally after sale of the property under suchmortgage.7 One who has signed a guaranty induced by fraud to believe that it is a memorandum concerning insurance, may set up the defense of non est factum in an action thereon.8 Substituting a quit-claim deed for a mortgage,9 or a deed for a power to collect rents;l0 omission to read to mortgagor a clause assuming a mortgage;111 or inserting without the knowledge of the adversary party a clause making a certain pledge collateral security for all debts owing, instead of for the debt in question;12 a false statement as to the covenants in a written lease;13 or the amount of goods specified in a writtenorder;14 or the manner of payment,15 each makes such instrument void. A fraudulent representation that the terms of a writing which is tendered as a contract are, in fact, those of the contract entered into between the parties, renders such contract void.16 If A and B are acting as partners and A is induced to execute a written contract with X by reason of X's statement that B has approved such contract and wishes A to execute it, such contract is invalid.17 If a surety who can neither read nor write-agrees to renew a note, and the payee and the second surety induce the first surety to sign a note in which he is made the principal debtor, such fraud releases such first surety, and, of coarse, he is not liable upon the second note.18 If A, B and C sign a note as joint makers, and A's signature is obtained by fraud as to the character of the instrument, and A could not have discovered its true character by the use ofordinary care, such instrument is invalid as to B and C.19 If A, who owns an estate by curtesy in realtywhich had belonged to his wife, executes a deed which conveys his interest in all of such realty in reliance upon the representation of the grantee that such deed conveyed such interest as to one lot only, A may have such deed set aside in equity.20 One who executes a written contract in what purports to be duplicate, in reliance upon the fraudulent representation of the adversary party that the two instruments are duplicates, may avoid such contract.21 Telegraph-Cable Co., 78 S. Car. 419, 59 S. E. 67. Washington. Rathbone v. Frost, 9 Wash. 162, 37 Ac. 298. West Virginia. Ballouz v. Higgins, 61 W. Va. 68, 56 S. E. 184; Acme Food Co. v. Older, 64 W. Va. 255, 61 S. E. 235. Wisconsin. Warder, etc., Co. v. Whitish, 77 Wis. 430, 46 N. W. 540; Bostwick v. Ins. Co., 116 Wis. 392, 92 N. W. 246 [modifying on rehearing 116 Wis. 392, 89 N. W. 538]. 2 Wickham v. Evans, 133 la. 552, 110 N. W. 1046. 3 Alabama. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Jordan, 170 Ala. 530, 54 So. 280. Arkansas. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 82 Ark. 105, 100 S. W. 884. Kentucky. Interstate Coal Co. v. Trivett, 155 Ky. 825, 160 S. W. 728. Massachusetts. Larsson v. Metropolitan Stock Exch., 200 Mass. 367, 86 N. E. 940; Connors v. Richards, 230 Mass. 436, 119 N. E. 831.

North Carolina. McCall v. Toxaway Tanning Co., 152 N. Car. 648. 68 S. E. 136. See also, Babcock v. Farwell, 245 111. 14, 91 N. E. 683. 4 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co, v• Ault, 101 Miss. 341, 58 So. 102. 5 Bjorklund v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 439, 77 Ac. 727. 6 Bothell v. Miller, 87 Neb. 835. 128 N. W. 628. 7 Merchants' & Farmers' Bank v. Cleland (Ky.), 77 S. W. 176, 719. 8 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 [distinguishing Foster v. Mackinnon, L. R. 4 C. P. 704, as applying to negotiable instruments only]. 9 Givan v. Mastereon, 152 Ind. 127, 51 N. E. 237. 10 Smith v. Smith, 134 N. Y. 62, 30 Am. St. Rep. 017, 31 N. E. 258. 11 Loucks v. Taylor, 23 Ind. App. 245, 55 N. E. 238. 12 Haldeman v. Bank, 44 S. W. 383,19 Ky. Law Rep. 1691. 13 Phelan v. Kuhn. 51 111. App. 644. 14 Shrimpton v. Netzorg, 104 Mich. 225, 62 N. W. 343. 15 Clinch, etc., Co. v. WiMing, 180 Pa. St. 165, 57 Am. St. Rep. 626, 36 Atl. 737. 16 Colorado Inv. Loan Co. v. Beuchat, 48 Colo. 494, 111 Ac. 61; Germer v. Gambill, 140 Ky. 469, 131 S. W. 268. 17 Standard Mfg. Co. v. Stallmann, 128 Wis. 375, 107 N. W. 662. Whether fraud in the factum exists in the particular case is a question of fact.22 Continue to: • • • prev: Sec. 228. Fraud In Execution - Existence Of Written Contract Table of Contents next: Sec. 230. Written Instrument Represented As Identical With Prior Contract

Tags contract, bank, payment, action, case, property, statute, debt, money, liability, evidence, c ompany,agreement, terms, sale, land, corporation, interest, offer, court, insurance, realty, instrument, agent

A scheme to defraud is not defined according to "technical standards." "The scheme need not be fraudulent on its face, but must involve some sort of fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension." United States v. Pearlstein, 576 F.2d 531, 535 (3dCir. 1978). See discussion below regarding N e d e r v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful